BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Selective Breeding Should Be Implemented in Humans

XD yeah other than the ethical reasons. Thanks for accepting my debate. Lets look at the Pros and Cons of selective breeding. Pros 1. Diseases can be eliminated 2. Populations can be easier maintained 3. Genetic planning can create stronger, healthy, and smarter humans. 4. More advances in genetics and science can be made 5. People can live life worry free of pregnancy and abortions would no longer happen 6. Adoptions would occur much more frequently which would provide well needed homes to children. Cons 1. Ethics The pros just out way the cons. Ethics are what hold back people from doing great things.
Selective Breeding Should Be Implemented in Humans

Ignoring the obvious ethical problems of such a regime, the issue with selective breeding is that it would end up being obsolete within a few decades. Overpopulation has been caused by the rapid industrialisation of many nations at once. China, India and to a lesser extent, the South American states have all had technological revolutions in recent years and thus have caused massive increases in life expectancy, but without giving people good reasons to stop having as big a family as possible. However, as these countries continue to modernise, which they will in the next few decades, having a large family will prove a burden to most families. This will cause the population to level out at around 9 billion, which with a few advances in technology that can be expected by then could be manageable for the world. If selective breeding were to be implemented now, as soon as the problem sorted itself out naturally governments across the world would be able to control the reproduction of all people under their control, with no reason to do so other than their own personal desires.
Reciprocity of conceal carry permits.

The requirements for CCW regulations within each individual jurisdiction should not be as complex . The implementation of Reciprocity legislation should standardize the requirements once and for all . Currently many states don't even grant you the bureaucratic mechanism for applying for a CCW if you're from a different state . Our Constitution grants us the Right to bear arms and the right for Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."... If individuals have the right to bear arms and free to move from and about . Doesn't local gun control laws hinders that freedom ? . My stance with the establishment of Reciprocity of CCW permits among states would be to resolve the issues created by leftist chauvinist authoritarian infiltrated in law enforcement agencies and draconian zealots in the Judicial system prosecuting law abiding citizens moving from and about while legally in possession of a fire arm . Far apart from what the anti gun movement would like to lead you to believe . Legal gun owners are the most law abiding citizens this country haves .
Reciprocity of conceal carry permits.

um... first, i don't see a need to carry a concealed gun traveling across states second, you have no option except to follow the rules unless you try to run for some government position third, the CCW permit clearly have the name of the state on them fourth, different state have different requirements for a CCW permit fifth, if this restriction between different states is not set up, there are too many loop holes people can find because each state have different governments and set up different laws
People high in American government must take an I.Q. test

=Definitions= I will use the definitions my opponent posted in round one. To my case, which consists of 4 major points 1. Already major problems 2. Allows big choices 3. It should be publicized 4. There should be a minimum =1. Already major problems= The ability to hold life or death in a persons hand requires a lot of responsibility and intelligence. It is this power that these politician hold everyday, they could choose to give life, help America, or give death, hurt America. Decisions are made everyday like what shirt am I going to ware, or what a I going to have for breakfast, but some of the decisions are made by politicians. For example the Obama Medicare plan, it started to drag America into deeper debt. Everything that help America get into debt was decided by a politician, or some one high in American government. People high in American government should prove if they are intelligent enough through an I. Q. test before making a life or death decision. =2. Allows big decisions= Like I said in my first point, people high in American government, or politicians, have the power to help or hurt America. The American people deserve to know that the politicians are intelligent enough to make the big decisions that could help or hurt the American people. I think that people high in the American government must take an I. Q. test because the American people don't know if they are even smart enough to make the big decisions that would run their life. Intelligence is needed to make the big decisions. =3. It should be publicized= After these people high in American government taken this I. Q. test, it should be shown to the American people, so it can bring reassurance that these people know what they are doing. It would also give the politicians support from the American people knowing that these people are in charge of their county. =4. There should be a minimum= After the politician has taken the I. Q. test, if the politician has lower then a set minimum then they shouldn't be in office. This would show that the politicians are intelligent enough to make the decisions. =Conclusion= Life, death, two outcome of serious decisions, the decisions made almost everyday by people high in American government. I stand Pro that they need the intelligence to make the laws and rules that would tell the average American what to and don't do.
People high in American government must take an I.Q. test

My opponent failed to give definitions so I shall do it. Definition. Intelligence Quotient - a number representing a person's ability (measured using problem-solving tests) compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100. When my opponent refers to high positions I believe we can sum all those positions up in one word Politicians. Politician - a person who is professionally involved in politics, as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office. Position. To my knowledge I will be defending that politicians such as a president, senator's etc. Should not require an I. Q. test before taking his/her position in office. Good Luck to my Opponent hope this debate is of benefit to us both.
People high in American government must take an I.Q. test

Round 1 will be for accepting the challenge and to ask any questions or any concerns. Pro must say: People high in American government (such as the president and congress) must take an I.Q. test. Con must say: People high in American government (such as the president and congress) must not take an I.Q. test. Not high as in drug high, but high in position of leadership. Good luck to my opponent.
Is money really the root of all evil

Evil- anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil. That is an actual definition of the word evil. It says anyTHING, not any state of mind, not and intention, it says anyTHING. Money is an object, it's a "thing". Because it also says ANYthing, you have to choose from all of the things on which has the most evil of intentions. That thing is money. Money is the thing which has the most evil of intentions. As I said before, money caused people to go crazy and act in strange ways. People do have bad intentions, but it isn't the rout. Bad intentions are always triggered. Money is the absolute route of most cases. I have already stated most of my case and I believe this completes it. Thank you.
Is money really the root of all evil

The notion that money is the root of all or most evil is absurd because if man never knew money or created money in the first place wouldn't it(evil) still exist . I mean say if I was in a relationship and my mate or lover cheated on me and I was so caught up by the heat of the moment I decided to kill him or her isn't that still evil which would mean that our mental thought and emotion and values are what is innately evil because this scenario had absolutely nothing to do with money but this argument is whether or not money is the root of evil and clearly it isn't the root of all evil is pardon me the roots of all evil are our mind, emotion and values, What my scenario above proves is that emotion can cause us to do demented things to one another in the heat of the moment without remorse . The things we value impact us because if the things we value are taken away like family , friends and freedom we would go evil or berserk , because individually we may believe that what is important and what we value is important that is the reason ones self would possibly go "evil" or "berserk" .Finally ,the one thing that puts value to the all mighty dollar is our minds . If we went against our innate feelings of trying to up-lift ourselves into society , we might be able to go against our innate feeling of greed which would put a value of maybe zero on the all mighty dollar because there would be no there would be no sense of value to us (mankind).The initial feeling of greed doesn't start when a man wants or needs money or what ever product/commodity but rather when man decides how can I hoard or gather or get all of this by them self without trying to feel humane. Initially we did create evil we created the all mighty dollar so as the producers of the almighty dollar I think we wouldn't no something about evil now wouldn't you agree.
Is money really the root of all evil

Money is only valuable because we make it valuable .Now I do respect your argument but however since we are human money isn't the root of evil our minds are because innately we naturally want more and better for ourselves and we would anything and everything to get the best . My point is money is simply the motivation it is not the over thinking , the greed or the actions that man commits .So since that's the case man's mind is the root of all evil If we didn't subscribe to money there would be no motivation to kill one another or rob one a another for money because it would be useless to us ; And also we are the creators of money and the trade system without us this wouldn't exist and with us gone this system would be obsolete because we need value to motivate through life and motivation is in our minds is the real root of all evil.
Is money really the root of all evil

I believe money is the route of all evil. Money is the driving force for all actions if you think about it. The insanity of doing things you don't want to do comes from wanting money and needing money. The only reason why people do jobs that they hate is for money. Most people hate their jobs. Weather you like it or not, money rules this world. You can't do anything if you don't have money. If you don't want to die of starvation you need a job to earn money to buy food. Money is the motivation. Most people want more than they need and that's where greed comes into play. Greed is a very powerful emotion and the mind-set of some people is that they need to of whatever they need to do to get what they want. People kill, steal, scheme, and basically do whatever they can to get money. Money is the motivation for all of this. If money didn't exist, most evil wouldn't exist. Just think is money wasn't an issue, would most people act like how they act now? The answer is no. Why would they? It's not us humans because if you were to take money out of the picture, humans wouldn't act like how they do. Money is the only reason why people do the crazy things that they do.
Smoking (not marijuana) should be banned

Okay pro, thanks for the opening argument. Here's why I don't think we should ban smoking: 1. Smoking is a right of the individual. A right is something that you own, it is not synonymous to just or acceptable. Since you owned the cigarettes that you brought from your local stores, you can smoke them. If you smoke while you're pregnant, that's your responsibility. 2. The tobacco industry will suffer immensely from the ban, causing many other businesses to crumble. When the tobacco industry dies off because of the ban, it shall cause investors to crumble too. This will also cause food industries to die off. Remember, tobacco is made from planting, vegetables and food are also made from planting. These two industries are really close together. 3. If you make smoking illegal, then people will get it illegally. It doesn't matter if you enforce this ban with punishments, just look at meth for gods sake. Most of all, more violence will come out of this ban. Look at the Mexican cartel, they smuggle weed into our country because its banned. Now they're gonna smuggle smokes. Some slick rebuttals for ya: 1. You describe how many people die because of smoking. It does not matter how many people die from smoking. It is not my problem. Just because it was their choice and they did not take responsibility for their actions does not mean someone else shouldn't smoke. 2. You describe how bad smoking is. Irrelevant. 3. No, I haven't. 4. Oh it's addictive? So? Again, it's the smokers choice that they are smoking. 5. You go into the cost of smoking. Yes, it's quite expensive. Wanna know why? Because the government taxes the living HELL out of this product to discourage people from buying it because it's bad for your health. Maybe if these liberals just REALIZE that they don't get to make other people's decision then people wouldn't hate them as much. 6. Yadadada, more data about cost of smokes. 7. You're harming the people around you. Look at my alternative coming right about now: Instead of banning smoking altogether, there should be places where you can smoke and cannot smoke. This is the best alternative because smokes wouldn't become black market material, and it doesn't interfere with peoples lives as much.
Mickle Jason is a greate man

Since I am Pro, I will be arguing for the resolution "Mickle Jason" is a "greate" man, and my opponent will be arguing agianst it. "greate" - Archaic spelling of great. [1] "great" - •relatively large in size or number or extent; larger than others of its kind; "a great juicy steak"; "a great multitude"; "the great auk"; "a great old oak"; "a great ocean liner"; "a great delay" •of major significance or importance; "a great work of art"; "Einstein was one of the outstanding figures of the 20th centurey" •remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect; "a great crisis"; "had a great stake in the outcome" [2] I will let my opponent define who "Mickle Jason" is and I will attempt to argue in that favor after he has defined it. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.google.com...
The earth: flat (pro) vs spherical (con)

Pro will argue for a flat earth, con will argue the spherical side. To avoid semantics involved with the topic, and go over some differences in types of evidence we'll likely discuss, I'll offer some definitions. earth: noun 1.the plane(t) on which we live; the world Flat: For this word we use the general, overall version, specifically for this debate, not a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. We all know there are mountains and hills that are far from flat. Spheroid: Ball or spherically shaped, specifically for this debate, a ball this is 25,000 miles in circumference. Empirical Data: Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. Formal sciences are disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and theoretical linguistics. These require no empirical data, and come secondary to such. I would also like to point out the differences in subjective evidence and objective data: http://www.asdatoz.com...... RULES 1. Burden of proof is shared, my opponent must provide conclusive, empirical, and subjective evidence for the two differences in our model, curvature, and axial rotation, and I must do the same for the opposing side of the dichotomy. 2. No semantics. 3. No ad hominem, my opponent seems to love insults, seeing as how I have a high tolerance for insults, Ad hominem is against the rules, meaning you can not use insult in or before an argument, or to replace an argument, once a rebuttal has been successful, some mud slinging should be in order and is allowed, if he chooses this, he should expect the same in return, all in good taste of course. 4. No forfeits otherwise, this will result in automatic loss and concession. round structure: round one should be either an acceptance only round, or con may state his opening arguments in this round, if he chooses the latter, he should forfeit the last round. round two should be used for opening arguments or, if my opponent opens first, my opening arguments, and his rebuttals to those arguments, and, if he chooses, more arguments, but no new arguments in round 3 if he opens first. the final round will be final rebuts and conclusions, unless he opens first, which he will forfeit by typing forfeit in that round.
Circus with animals should be forbidden.

Excuse me, but are you freaking KIDDING ME? Animals enjoy circuses because of treats and AFFECTION? We LEGALLY must treat them nicely, give them affection and company? Animals used in circus are treated brutally! They are kept hungry and cruel treatment is meted out to them! Why do you think they band so many circuses around the world? People who work in circuses are mostly poor and homeless, living in poor hygienic conditions, traveling all over the world (which is another problem-long animal transports, which is CEIRTANLY TORTURE!) and Circus is their home! So don't you 'THEY LEGALLY MUST TREAT THEM NICELY' me. Do you even know how the loud noises and crowds of people scare them poor things? And why? Just because we were given the DOMINATION OVER ALL OTHER CREATURES, we can disrespect them in that way and torture them, what, in the name of your IMAGINARY GOD? 'They seem to be happy.' Oh, do they now? http://www.dzzz.si... http://4.bp.blogspot.com... http://www.idausa.org... http://pictures-of-cats.org... http://www.ahan.org... http://www.animal-rights-action.com... http://www.veganpeace.com... Do they seem happy to you? Do they? And HOW can you EVEN say 'We LEGALLY must let them live in a simulated habitat.' Please, tell me, HOW? Does this look like a simulated habitat to you? http://www.baltimoresun.com... http://www.dzzz.si... http://media4.s-nbcnews.com... http://animalwelfaretaiwan.webs.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.veganpeace.com... http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://www.theorganicview.com... Here are some quick facts about animals in circuses: 1) Animals in circuses spend about 11 months of the year traveling 2) During travel, animals may be caged or chained for long distances and hours, forced to stand in their own waste, in extreme temperatures. 3)In the wild, elephants live in large, sociable herds and walk up to 25 miles every day. Most other wild animals found in circus settings, including lions and tigers, are also constantly on the move in their native habitats. In the circus, animals spend most of their time in cages or chains. 6)Circus animals spend an average of 26 hours in cages, during transport. !!! VIRTUALLY 96 % OF A CIRCUS ANIMALS' LIFE IS SPENT IN CHAINS OR CAGES !!! You might as well check out ANY, I mean ANY video on YouTube, and find out you're wrong yourself. http://www.youtube.com... 9:03 minute is really lovable,, darling. Enjoy other videos too. You can find loads on youtube. I'm really glad Circus with animals is mostly banned in Europe. And it is banned for a reason! ~ ~ ~ Sources: PETA, YouTube and my heart.
Circus with animals should be forbidden.

Circus is a criminal towards animals. In your profile, I saw you chose PRO at the Animal Rights point, so why are you even arguing in that point?I am PRO animal rights because I am not for torturing creatures, treating them like trash, starving them, etc.And, I also saw you are a Christian and that you believe in the Bible. First of all I am sorry for that, and second thing is, if you believe that God created everything. He created animals too, right?In Genesis, God game us dominion over all other creatures.And besides, what if I believe in God, but don't FOLLOW him? What if I find him immoral after he ordered torture, enslavement, cannibalism, rape, molestation, child sacrifise, and eternal torture? I might not follow him; I am not sure.______________________Animals were not created to stand in 2 legs, dance and be bitten by people who work there and to jump through rings of fire.The animals seem to enjoy standing erect for treats and affection.BITING AND FLAMES?!?! WHAT CENTURY ARE YOU LIVING IN?!? IT IS ILLEGAL TO BIGHT AN ANIMAL. THE FIRE ALSO HAS TO BE SAFE!___________________________________________________________They were created as WILD animals, who have rights to LIVE THEIR LIVES AS IT WAS MENT FOR THEM TO DO THAT!Again, we LEGALLY must treat them nicely, give them afffection/company, let them live in a simulated habitat. They seem to be happy.And about rights: who gave them rights? Humans don't have rights; we have privelages that can be taken away with ammendments.America has 27 or so rights.Britain has more.Saudi Arabia has no rights at all.And what rights do animals have? Can they vote? Can they consent to sexual intercourse? Or are they like mentally ill people? Do they have to undergo medical exams?
Circus with animals should be forbidden.

Circus is a criminal towards animals. In your profile, I saw you chose PRO at the Animal Rights point, so why are you even arguing in that point? And, I also saw you are a Christian and that you believe in the Bible. First of all I am sorry for that, and second thing is, if you believe that God created everything. He created animals too, right? Animals were not created to stand in 2 legs, dance and be bitten by people who work there and to jump through rings of fire. They were created as WILD animals, who have rights to LIVE THEIR LIVES AS IT WAS MENT FOR THEM TO DO THAT! I am more than happy to know that Circus is forbidden almost in every country of Europe.
The moon is home to ravenous hedgehogs

My opponent certainly makes some hard hitting arguments but I have found the big flaw in his logic. frenchmoose could not possibly affirm the resolution because, as his name implies, he is french and nobody can see the moon from france. Also, he is a moose and meese do not have imposable thumbs, so he cannot drive to another country to investigate the moon. Further still, the moon landing was a hoax and Michael Jackson is dead so there is no possible reliable sources he could have from anyone who has walked the moon. Counter-resolution is affirmed.