BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cloning

Though the cost may be staggering, that is the price that comes with what humans need to live. Keeping our world healthy starts with the health of the people. Since the body of the clone would react in the same way a natural body would, cloning could develop spare organs which would be very useful. For example, diseases and age could cause the failure of a vital organ that one could only last so long without. On a machine, they will live yet be restricted to a certain extent. However, there is always the option of an organ transplant. With the amount of organ donors falling short of the amount of people waiting for a transplant operation, the wait could be months or years before being considered for the transplant. Money put towards medical operations can go to waste easily if the operation does not go as planned. The money put towards cloning will replace the money usually needed for any other operation, except the results will be more beneficial.
Liberalism is ruining America, It is unpatriotic and anti-Christian and leans more toward Muslims

Hey everyone, I look forward to this debate. I just wanted to mention that you're on the Con side, but I am guessing you are just Con to Liberalism and are for the resolution. So the burden of proof stays on you because you are standing for the resolution. With that in mind, good luck to my opponent! Now I will start by refuting what my opponent has said in their speech. I am going to break their argument up into three parts - liberals being unpatriotic, liberals being against Christianity, and liberals favoring immigrants and refugees over the citizens of the United States. First, unpatriotic. My opponent says that liberals are for things like "flag burning", yet this is completely ridiculous. My opponent doesn't even offer a source for this ludicrous claim. It even contradicts itself - one who is not willing to accept 26% of United States citizens (liberals) is certainly unpatriotic - they are unwilling to live in the same country with over a quarter of the people in it, essentially going against a huge part of the U.S. So no, liberals aren't the unpatriotic ones, you are. Second, anti-christian. My opponent says "how can you call yourself A Christian , if you openly support abortion and the funding of Planned Parenthood", but what my opponent does not understand is that not all of the United States is Christian. See, he is assuming that everyone in the U.S. calls themselves a Christian, but who's to say that? A large percentage of this country isn't Christian! Have you heard of the separation of church and state - an incredibly large law carried out in the First Amendment of the Constitution? Just because you may be a Christian doesn't mean that everyone else has to abide by your rules. Overall, the Christianity segment of my opponent's argument was very odd and didn't make much sense, which is why this may seem like a messy rebuttal. Third and lastly, favoring immigrants and refugees over U.S. citizens - this argument is truly absurd. My opponent says that liberals believe that "not only illegal immigrants can enter America, but also terrorist and drugs". Now what my opponent is saying is a complete generalization. Virtually nobody is for illegal immigration in reality - the difference is in how we handle the problems. People like Trump say that all Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, which is just xenophobia. Most people, including liberals, know that our immigration system is a mess. Also, my opponent thinks that crime is caused by immigrants and refugees, but in reality, this crime happens because of loose gun laws - you know, that tiny thing in Orlando that happened about a week ago? Where around 50 people were killed, around 50 more people were injured? That was caused by a United States citizen with easy access to firearms - clearly a fault of the lack of strict gun laws we have now (caused by conservatives, ironic. All immigrants have to offer is economic benefit, the statistics are very widespread by now.That's all for me.
Liberalism is ruining America, It is unpatriotic and anti-Christian and leans more toward Muslims

I have a lot of time to watch the news and I watch both Liberal media and Conservative media and Liberals are destroying America. They have no Patriotic values. They are for flag burning , the influx of a refugees from Syria, that cannot have a valid background check and open borders , where not only illegal immigrants can enter America, but also terrorist and drugs . They protect criminal, illegal immigrants , that kill Americans and protect Sanctuary Cities. And how can you call yourself A Christian , if you openly support abortion and the funding of Planned Parenthood, which sells , baby parts ? And I have never seen an interview with a Liberal , whom , will not avoid answering the questioned asked. Liberals are selling out America . I just wonder how Liberals can live with themselves and face the fact that they are selling out their children's future .
Drugs should be decriminalized

Drugs are bad. I am very proud to say that I have never so much as tried any recreational drugs. I see no compelling reason as to why I should try any recreational drugs. I care too much about my health. Alcohol is bad. I am very proud to say that I have never dome more than take a few sips of alcohol. I see no compelling reason as to why I should drink alcohol. I care too much about my health. They tried outlawing alcohol once. It didn't work very well. People made their own alcohol and it caused huge amounts of crime. In fact, prohibition was so unsuccessful and counterproductive that it was repealed just 13 years later. Prohibition was clearly a mistake. That's fine. Mistakes help us move forward. Or do they? We've now been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. People still do drugs. As of 2004, nearly 20% of American prisoners are in prison on drug charges [1]. This tells us a few things, which include the fact that the war on drugs has hardly been successful. It also tells us that 20% of our prison population is not in prison for harming someone or their property. We happen to be in an economic downturn. If we were to allow drugs to be sold, it would certainly help the economy. And remember that big deficit that the US has? And you know those income taxes that we all hate? Well, we wouldn't have to increase income tax as much if we legalized and taxed drugs. Why stay in the US? If drugs were legalized in Mexico, it would virtually end the drug war. Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you when you can get drugs for cheaper and without getting shot or losing fingers? It's really the same way inside the US, though on a much smaller scale. If drugs were legalized, there would be fewer gangs since it would be easier, cheaper, and safer to buy drugs at a store. There are two groups of people who would be hurt by drug legalization: Drug dealers and police officers. The former is obviously a group of people who we want to be hurt, and the latter we actually also want to be hurt. We don't want them to be hurt because we have a deep-seated hatred for police officers, but we want them to hurt because police officers get cut when there are too many, so when police officers get cut, it means that our crime rate is going down, which is a good thing. I fear that I may have already said too much for an introduction, but if anybody is still willing to join my poorly organized debate, I welcome it! 1. http://www.albany.edu...
Being Able To Move Super Fast Is Better Than Being Able To Stop Time

Greetings to my opponent and many thanks for starting this debate. Let us begin. Whereas my opponent is of the belief that being able to move super fast is better than being able to stop time, I must say that being able to move super fast is at best either equal or inferior to being able to stop time. CONTENTION #1: Being "super fast" can apply to just about any speed. It's a pity PRO set this debate up to be a a two sentence trap debate as I have no clue what he means by "super fast." Thus, I'm afraid I must point out that being super fast is within the eye of the beholder and that one could very well consider an average member of a track team as being "super fast." On the other hand, being able to stop time has no varying limits due to lack of subjectivity. CONTENTION #2: If I were able to stop time, I could rule the planet quite easily as: #1. No one would be ever be a threat to me since everyone else is limited to time. Seriously, if the army decided to drop an atomic bomb on my vicinity, I could just stop time and get out of the area quite easily whereas someone who was super fast would most likely fail, depending on how super fast they were. #2. I could blackmail the entire planet (such as claim that I'll stop time and have atomic bombs [which I can easily have access to if I take advantage of my ability], threaten to reveal embarrassing secrets about world leads [which I can easily learn if I make use of my ability to stop time], or simply claim that time will never progress unless I am given outrageous ransom fees. CONTENTION #3: If I ever encountered someone who was "super fast", no matter how super fast they were, they wouldn't be able to overcome time being paused, in which case I could dispatch them at my leisure. Now I suspect that my opponent has some pretty sneaky underhanded intentions in having created this debate in the way he did and I am positively certain of the specific argument he intends to use. Nonetheless, he is more than free to try and use it as I am well prepared for it.
Anger is a dangerous emotion and should be dispelled from society

On a more personal note, I am pleased to see that my opponent likes death metal. It automatically boosts here "cool meter" up 3 notches ;D. Now onto the debate: ========== Anger is many times, if not always, counterproductive to intelligent discourse ========== This is a debating website, and most of us understand the importance of intelligent discourse. Countless communities and people engage in this act. Politicians everywhere, from Congress to our President. Activists and political opponents. College campuses and scientific communities. Philosophical circles and critical thinkers. Intelligent discourse surrounds many aspects of our lives, and helps produce well-furnished ideas and compromises. Just imagine how much better people will be at debating, and exchanging intelligent ideas, without emotions getting in the way? Not only will being calm give people a better way of communicating in intelligent discourse, but it can also serve to remove bias. If someone is personally angered by an issue (death penalty or gay marriage), then this can very easily cloud their judgment. By removing anger, the world can be one step closer to being rid of ignorance and clouded judgements. ========== Anger prevents many crimes from occurring ========== How many crimes have happened in the heat of passion? COUNTLESS! Many crimes are caused by a streak of anger, ranging from physical assault, to reckless driving, to even murder. By removing anger, society in general can benefit greatly. I dare say I need not develop this point more, as it is evident. By removing anger, we remove a substantial portion of crime - a goal that any well-driven society should strive for. ========== Anger hurts and/or causes tension for many personal relationships ========== On a more personal level, countless of friendships and relationships have been damaged by someone's anger. A quick temper can lead to hostility from others or a sudden but rare moment of being mad may damage a marriage or a couple - something that is tragic and should be avoided. By removing anger, more relationships can be intact and therefore more people will be happy. ========== Conclusion ========== These are only 3 of my points now. If I feel that there are more points to bring into awareness, than I may do so in the following rounds (seeing as how this is a 5-round debate). Until then, these points should be adequate to carry my position through. I await my opponent's response.
Real is much stronger today than Barca.

Thanks for your argument. First of all, the standings in La Liga changed. Last day Barca was ahead from Real. But Barca lost Granada. Whereas Real could defeat Almeria. I am right with you that tick-tak is a beneficial tactic. When Guardiola was the head coach of Barcelona Barcelona was one uf the unbeatable teams. It was very strong. But after him, Vilanova was seriously ill. Roura and Martino could not apply this tactic. Furthermore opponents learnt this strategy and plays against Barsa in counter-attacks. Barca does not have second B plan. So, when the defence of opponent is like a rock, Barca confronts many difficulties. The losses by Valladolid, Atletico, Granada proved that many things should be changed in Barca. Also, in last periods Messi cannot play very well. I want to repeat my arguments: 1) Barca does not have a good second squad as Real. 2) Barca's tactic is not working always today. 3) Barca does not have any B plan. Thanks.
Real is much stronger today than Barca.

Well to start i think you shouldn't look at how they play today, and you should look at the big picture like i mentioned. It is true that real is playing better today. However If you look at the standings Barcelona is still 2nd and real 3th so your argument is pretty invalid. And also it is true that they bought Neymar. But who bought real this year ( Bale ) so that argument is invalid as well. I want to say that they are both really big clubs and I think everybody is agreeing on that matter. But I still believe Barcelona is stronger because they play a really beautiful way of football as well instead of real that is a team that plays counter football(but this is a matter of own opinions).
Real is much stronger today than Barca.

Thanks for your argument. But, firstly, I think that the debate is not the policy of these clubs. The topic is which is stronger TODAY and why. Secondly, I want to say, you meant 90 per cent of Barca came when they were youngsters, but last years Barca made some transfers and we could see that some of the main playes such as Neymar, Alexis, Alba came from different clubs. Although, Pique and Fabregas was from Barca schools, but they played in other teams, then returned to Barca. My second argument is that Barca's defend is much weaker than Barca. In Barca Puyol is old, Piques is not in the top form, and both Bartra and Mascherano couldn't play like Puyol. But in Real, right defender Arbeloa and Carvajal are okay. Also, Marcelo is not a bad player. Sergio Ramos, Pepe and Varane are good defenders. So, if one team' defence is weak today, it means that this club has serious problems.
Real is much stronger today than Barca.

I Really dissagree with you. First of all ask yourself the question: what is big? --> having a lot of money to buy your succes. A club like Barcelona gives youngsters the chance to develop their life. If you look at the first team of barcelona you can see that 90% of the team entered barca as a youngster and in football terms that is a big club because no other club of the size as barcelona has that much talented players.
Theory of Everything

This is a theory vs. theory debate, in which each debater will propose their own Theory of Everything. There will not be a Pro vs. Con position in this debate. Each debater is to define and promote their own theory, and the voters will decide which theory more objectively and holistically describes everything in the Universe. Debaters can dispute and rebut opposing theories, but I prefer that the majority of the debate is focused on articulating and promoting your own theory. I'm not big on debate rules, so use the rounds how ever you please. My Theory of Everything is as follows: Universe = Space + Matter + Fundamental Force of Balance Space - Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction (Wikipedia). In other words, space is the three dimensional canvas on which the Universe is painted. Matter - An entity that takes up space and usually consists of matter. All particles, objects, and substances in the Universe are made of matter. Fundamental Force of Balance - Forces that cause and govern the movement and interaction of matter. These forces do not consist of matter and are the most difficult to define and understand. Some may refer to this force as energy. A physicist may call it the four fundamental forces of nature. However we chose to define it specifically, there is no question that there are forces of motion at work in the Universe. I believe that these three categories are the primary ingredients of our Universe. This means that everything in the Universe can be classified into one of these categories, and that these categories cannot be condensed or simplified any further. Good luck! http://en.wikipedia.org...
smart cities lead to inflation

Let me clarify that I am not a Luddite who is against deploying new technology. I am merely arguing that technology is a useful tool for achieving other objectives and is not a goal in itself. smart cities are ultimately about clustering smart people and not steel-and-chrome towers: s. Building human capital clusters also requires active management and investment. One obvious strategy is to weave educational, cultural and intellectual institutions into the fabric of the city. Yet, Indian urban planners are doing exactly the opposite. Universities are not being built as part of the city but as large stand-alone islands outside the city. This is not just a waste of land and amenities, but also gets in the way of creating clusters. Similarly, the smart city advocates say little about the need to make space for museums, think tanks, theatres, temples, sports facilities or iconic buildings. No amount of digital technology can create a human capital cluster without investing in such cultural and intellectual institutions
smart cities lead to inflation

Well, apparently my opponent agrees with me that he has the full burden of proof (since he didn't argue with me). This being the case, I have already won the debate. After all, he plagiarized the first round, fell into a logical fallacy in the second round, and didn't make an argument this round. Having said that, I am happy to act on his advice, and offer my negative case. Negative Case Smart cities actually lower inflation due to their aggressive use of cutting edge technology. This allows costs to be deferred by more productive use of time.[2] Sources: 2. http://www.bloomberg.com...
smart cities lead to inflation

Well, apparently my opponent doesn't deny his plagiarism, and wishes to continue the debate. I am happy to oblige him. First things first... Burden of Proof As the instigator and the one making the positive claim, my opponent has the full burden of proof. He has to make a case supporting his claim, but I do not. As Con, all I am required to do is negate his arguments. I reserve the right to make my own negative case, but for now, will only be negating his arguments. REBUTTAL Logical Fallacy After stealing his first round argument from a source, my opponent has now gone in the complete different direction, and not referenced a single source. This is a problem for him, because it renders his entire second round argument as a logical fallacy known as a bare assertion. [1] This happens when someone makes an argument, but offers zero evidence to support their claims. Basically we're supposed to just believe their argument because they say so. I ask the voters to reject his entire second round arguments as the baseless claims that they are. Sources: 1. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
smart cities lead to inflation

I my views Smart cities are empty hype. They lead to rise in cost of living in the following way:- 1)The land required for completion of the projects is purchased at ridiculously high rates which is tried to be recovered from the taxpayers. Sometimes the farmers who are unwilling to sell their land are exploited thus finally it is the poor who suffer. 2)Smart cities are most of the times a product of private companies which cost very take all the townships for example. 3)An "environment tax of 30 percent is levied on industries drastically reducing investments leading to unemployment in masses. 4)There is no plan as to what happens to existing cities which already face tons of problems which I dont think need to be mentioned. Lastly, I would like to say that smart cities are not same as smart phones which can immediately changed as new models come in market sooner than later technology would go old thus it is smart citizens that make a city smart and not only the technology.
That society ought to recognize animal rights

I'll agree with my opponent on one sentiment: Bad voters should stay away. Please. I'll be taking the negative side of this topic, as to why society ought not recognize animal rights. I, of course, agree to my opponent's definitions, but will note two things:1. I do hope my opponent doesn't decide to run an abusive argument over his definition of "rights". That has a liiiiiittle bit too much lee-way to it, although it does come from a good source. It's probably just false paranoia, as larz isn't the kind of person to run an abusive argument, but regardless.2. I feel that one definition was missing from what my opponent gave. Of course, the resolution is talking about what we should or shouldn't do in terms of animal rights, but ought possesses another connotation to that. Ought means to possess some sort of obligation, whether it be a moral one or a legal one, with more sources leaning toward the moral side of things. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...;I'd love to debate philosophy, but regardless, it's the pro's burden to prove that society HAS to recognize animal rights. Not doing so would not prove an obligation, and thus would not affirm the resolution. As such, it's my burden to disprove that, either through refuting his case or the presentation and defense of my own.
That society ought to recognize animal rights

This is for the second official DDO Tournament, and this is the second round. It is a great honor to be debating Zaradi again, and to have this oppertunity to discuss this really important topic. Once again I don't think either of us will really try to cheat with our definitions. "Society" is to be taken in the most general possible sense, so pointing out specific people who have better things to do than care about animal rights is not sufficient to carry the motion. Generally this motion is about whether animal rights should be recognised and not about who should recognise them. "Animal" shall include all members of the scientific animal kingdom except humans, who are presumed to have rights already. "Rights" "are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states. " (. http://plato.stanford.edu...). This does not imply that all rights ought to extend to all animals, that some animals ought to have all rights, or inversely, that all animals ought to have some rights. The burden of proof in this debate is mine. That means that I need to prove why society ought to recognise at least some rights for some animals. Bad voters, please go away. As per the rules of this tournament, this is an acceptance round.
In a deomcracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

The rounds will go as follows: Round 1 Neg: States the rules Round 1 Pro: States his arguments Round 2 Neg: States arguments and rebuts to Pro's case Round 2 Pro: Rebuts to Con's case Round 3: Neg rebuts to Pro's case Round 3: Pro once again rebuts to neg's case 10,000 character limit. 3 days to argue(per round). Good Luck!