BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex is the Meaning of Life

"Point 1: The human race must continue." This is a subjective point and it is not valid. "is a built in instinct to reproduce so that our species may continue, and every organism on the planet tries their best to follow that instinct." It is also a built in instinct for every organism to feed and to obtain energy in some way. Would you say that eating is the meaning of life? "if the point of life is to continue the existance of your species, then sex is the point of life." Your reasoning is fallacious. Not only are you assuming that there is a point to life, but you are assuming that it is the continuation of the species. You have not shown why either of these statements are true. "This means that sex is the greatest source of pleasure" This statement, again, is completely and utterly subjective. "If the meaning of life is to have fun, then the meaning of life is sex." It is up to you to show why the meaning of life is to have fun.
Sex is the Meaning of Life

I have already made my first arguments in Round 1, but since you have given me the opportunity, let me expand on them. Point 1: The human race must continue. It is a built in instinct to reproduce so that our species may continue, and every organism on the planet tries their best to follow that instinct. You may argue that there are asexual methods of reproduction, but since we are referring to humans in this debate and sex has been the only method of reproduction for thousands of years, point stands that if the point of life is to continue the existance of your species, then sex is the point of life. Point 2: Some live to have fun, this is also found in sex. Sex is the greatest source of pleasure known to man. Not only does it provide fantastic exhiliration, but in most cases it is absolutely free. This means that sex is the greatest source of pleasure for the greatest amount of people meaning: If the meaning of life is to have fun, then the meaning of life is sex. Thank you
Cloning

Cloning technology is a significant breakthrough in biotechnology with the potential to benefit individuals and our society as a whole. While there are ethical considerations that must be addressed, it would be an unthinkable to discontinue research in cloning technology due to fear of the unknown. The potential medical advances involving cloning could help to improve quality and length of life. Cloning, like other medical breakthroughs, will take time and will be difficult. There may be errors, mistakes and even failed attempts to save lives along the way. This is how every medical breakthrough progresses. For example, the first human to human kidney transplant occurred in 1936 and worked poorly for only two days before finally failing. There were many steps that had to happen before this failed attempt was possible, and the timeline of transplantation medicine is rich with many imperfect attempts before getting to successful outcomes. Although tragic, negative outcomes along the way are not unethical because the intentions are to save lives, improve outcomes, and use all findings to continue to improve the science. Another of the primary ways that cloning technology is expected to improve human health conditions is by decreasing risk for transplant organ rejection due to the patient"s immune system. Organs developed through cloning would be genetically identical to the patients" own cells so there would be no chance of their immune system rejecting the transplant. Although we currently have immunosuppressive drugs to prevent organ rejection, these drugs increase risks of infection, cancer, heart disease and bone marrow suppression. Thus, there is lots of room for improvement in this field that cloning could help to advance.
Cloning

Regardless of all our research, 95% of cloning experiments fail. Do we really want to risk the many consequences of cloning organisms? Cloning is a very controversial issue bubbling up today between scientists, politics, and the general public. Many believe that we can develop the technology to perfect cloning. But, others argue that the process is very dangerous, and to get to the levels of perfection there will be many risk factors. Cloning is the process of creating an identical organism asexually, or producing cells to perform a certain task. Producing stem cells and using them to create another organ or tissue is an example of Therapeutic cloning. Making a genetically identical organism is called Reproductive cloning. Scientists use Therapeutic cloning to cure diseases like Diabetes or heal organs in an organism. They"ve tested this process on many animals. Scientists take a woman"s ovum and extract the DNA, then insert the DNA of another cell in the patients body. The cells start to develop into Pluripotent stem cells, which are cells that can form any cell in the body to perform a certain task. They take these stem cells and create an organ/tissue needed for the operation. The argument related to Therapeutic cloning is that many people believe it is considered a murder to a living organism. But, others believe that it is a very successful way to obtain the organs needed for an operation. There are many more disagreements, especially dealing with Reproductive cloning. Scientists use Reproductive cloning to create new organisms. They"ve done this on many animals, and are deciding whether or not to perform this task on humans. Many citizens think that Reproductive cloning may lead to more arguments, for example designer babies. They believe rich people will take advantage of this process to create the ideal child. But, others think that Reproductive cloning is a great advancement to the technology in our time. They think that it needs to be explored for scientific purposes. I strongly believe that both performances of cloning should not be used, they are recognizably dangerous and could potentially hurt our society. In general, all cloning should be banned.
Cloning

Did you know that cloning could save millions of lives? Heart disease is the number one killer in the United States. Scientists have discovered technology that allows them to inject cloned healthy heart cells into damaged hearts to repair cells and prevent premature deaths by heart attacks. Cloning is process by which new cells are cloned from another cell to create a genetically identical copy. Cloning can be useful in two different ways, one way is referred to as therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is a process by which embryonic stem cells are produced to repair or replace damaged cells or organs in the body. The other use for cloning is known as reproductive cloning. This is the process by which, genetically identical copies of individuals are reproduced. Many people believe that cloning should not be allowed at all, because it"s playing the role of god and creating humans without having to reproduce. Many also fear that if cloning was allowed, eventually all of society would be the same and no one would be unique or individual. I strongly believe that cloning is a process that we could benefit greatly from and that cloning organisms should be allowed.
Cloning

I understand that there may be many benefits to cloning. But there are also many risk factors. Through reproductive cloning, we put lives of many animals at risk. We would also be spending more money than we can afford to spend. The gigantic investment is not worth the many risk factors including social issues with cloned humans, and disabilities found in the newly produced clones. The bad things do go on. Most people believe we will benefit from the performance of therapeutic cloning. Through therapeutic cloning, you are able to cure diseases and heal organs. But on the contrary, therapeutic cloning is very risky and has not been perfected. Also, in order to perfect a process, you need subjects to test it on. Do we really want to test this dangerous process on our society? I would like to address the issue of killing a young embryo. You say you don"t consider an embryo at this young of an e a "potential piece of life" but I do! Think about it, an organism has to start somewhere, you can"t just assume its not an organism when it is beginning to develop!agIf we allow therapeutic cloning, that will influence others that reproductive cloning is ok. We all know that it is not. It may be an advancement in technology, but it is not necessary in society? Do we really need unhealthy animals roaming our farms? By the time we perfect the process, we will be in massive debt! Imagine the amounts of money being wasted away for this silly project. Also, I don"t think it is necessary for another human classification group to evolve. If we allow any of these processes, especially reproductive, then "clones" will become a group of human beings! We don"t need another reason for kids to get pushed around and bullied. This kind of classification could lead to school shootings, and suicide attempts like other cases. Kids who get bullied are likely to do so. Many people state that therapeutic cloning cures diseases, and helps failing organs. Did you know that embryonic stem cells often cause tumors? This was shown in recent animal studies with cloning. Humans are extremely close to animals, so this is a huge problem. Curing diseases is not an exceptional argument if this likely causes another detriment. Overall cloning is a big "no-go." It is financially similar to putting money in a paper shredder. Using billions of dollars on this project, there is no profit made with the expenses to perform the task. We shouldn"t be using our taxes to fund this risky and insane process. Cloning is illegal for a reason, so why change it?
Cloning

I would like to address your question and major points in this final rebuttal. First, you argue/question the value of therapeutic cloning for saving lives because at the same time it is "a case of murder". I would like to turn your attention to the fact that there is not a developed organism to "murder". Rather, at the blastocyst stage there is only a small cluster of cells which include approximately 100 undifferentiated cells (pluripotent cells). While every embryo holds with it the potential for life, in the natural course of things, a large percentage of embryos never make it to the final stages of development. There is no evidence that these early cells have any ability to think, feel, sense or even interact with the world. In addition, the cloned cells are not being killed, they are being grown into larger organs used to save already living individuals. In my opinion, therapeutic cloning is not "murder", but is an alternative way to save individuals that are sick and likely to die. Next, you argue that allowing cloning will lead to a human egg black market. Unfortunately, it is true that the underprivileged in our society are vulnerable to doing all kinds of things for money. Therapeutic cloning may increase the demand for human eggs; however, legislation and law enforcement will decrease the risk an egg black market. This is no different than current laws that ban black market sales of babies and organs. You also argue that all cloning is "playing God" by creating life only to use it and note that this is in opposition to religious concepts. First, I"d like to point out that there is often a tension between science which is based on observation and fact and religion which is based on faith. Although I respect that everyone has a right to their own faith and opinions, there are wide variety of beliefs and many advances in biotechnology would not exist if religion was the guideline. I believe that science should be separated from religion. Second, I believe it is ethical and morally right to create cells to save a life. Finally, you argue that given the number of failed cloning attempts and the high cost of this technology, cloning should be banned. Rather than banning it, we need to perfect it. Although cloning technology is not yet ready to be used with humans, the research is well underway and we should learn from each failed attempt. Great things come from our mistakes. In conclusion, I strongly believe that there are many potential benefits for individuals and our society and we need to continue to develop cloning technology.
Should the U.S. increase exploration and development

I, as the Pro side of this debate believe that the U.S. should increase its development and exploration of the oceans. For my argument I offer the following reasons: 1.) New Resources subpoint a.) Geothermal energy 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals 3.) Preservation of Ocean Life ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1: New Resources For years there has been a debate in efforts to move to green alternative energy sources. The ocean offers the U.S. two sources for alternative energy; hydroelectric, and geothermal. For this debate I will focus solely on geothermal energy one of the various types of energy. Subpoint A.) Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy utilizes the heat within the core of the Earth, making this method a reliable source of energy. This wonder of the alternative energy has several benefits, such as that geothermal energy only gives 1/8 of the emission of carbon of coal, one of the leading fossil fuels used within the U.S. currently. Unlike other forms of alternative energy, geothermal energy does not revolve around fluctuations from day to day being that it's a constant energy derived from the heat of the Earth's interior. Lastly, this environmentally friendly fuel source is cost effective. Conservative estimates claim that savings on heating bills range from 30-60%, and cooling ranges from 25-50%. 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals Science has searched for alternative medicine from natural sources. It has been found within the oceans surrounding the United States. Various marine plants and organisms have properties that have improved human health. Just to name a few of these organisms: A Caribbean sea sponge's generative compound has been used in medicines such as AZT to treat AIDs and HIV. Skate, a flat fish, has provided clues in advancing poor eye vision. Secosteroid enzymes found in coral are also being used in medicine, and is used to treat arthritis, asthma, and other inflammatory disorders. These are just a few of the many organisms currently being used in modern medicine practices, however this isn't the end as scientific tests are being ran. 3.) Preservation of Wild Life According to the NOAA, 2215 creatures are protected under the ESA. These marine life creatures range from least concern to critically endanger status. However to name a few, lets look at the current population numbers for the top 4 marine mammals on the list. Only 55 Maui dolpjons, 350 northern right whales, and a range of 500- 600 Vaquitas , the rarest dolphin, remain. Without these creatures in existence, food chains would become disrupted and cause an unbalanced diet and cause possible over population. By allowing the United States federal government to explore the earth's oceans , we could find ways to preserve dwindling ocean life. This would include repopulation efforts or even creating regulation to protect them. In order to avoid the disruption of food chains and extinction, we must understand the causes and find ways to prevent further damage to these animals' habitats and their well-being. For these reasons I argue in favor of expanding exploration and development.
one child policy for third world country

well, i except a lot when you said one child policy fundamentally fails as good method of population control, because the reality said it proven it is a good method of population control, The population grew from around 540 million in 1949 to 940 million in 1976 and after the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rate in China fell from 2.63 births per woman in 1980 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to 1.61 in 2009, and you only just stated one liner rebuttal. The second rebuttal is when you said, that one child policy loosened its grip on in many areas . you never explain the areas is, again, there are many economic and environmental advantages of that resulted due to the implementation of the One Child Policy. The policy improved the overall economic stability of the nation, who knows how bad things would be without it. It is said that the policy created gender imbalance and inequalities, however it is evident that the policy is the reason for China's current economic positon. -http://en.wikipedia.org...
one child policy for third world country

Alright, well basically I didn't understand any of that...Anyway, here is why the one child policy fundamentally fails as a good method of population control and why, at minimum, a two child policy would work far better.Ignoring issues of the social development of an only-child, I shall hone in on the fundamental issue of only allowing parents, especially in an impoverished nation, to only have one child; they all want boys.Want evidence? Here's what happened to China when it had its pathetic one child policy that it has thankfully loosened its grip on in many areas.The latest figures show that for every 100 girls born in China, 119 boys are born. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
one child policy for third world country

one child policy mechanism: socialization, free contraception for female, and if there's family who have more than 1 child, the next child wont get any support from the government and fined I believe that now, overpopulation is real and damage's, 28,7 percent of population growth in 1999 and 2009. The problem like economic, crime, government, policy, and future for the children itself it caused by the overpopulation. Social paradigm in third world country makes people want to produce more kids, for example in India and Indonesia, in Indonesia, couples want to make child until they get a boy and in Indonesia, more kids equivalent to a better life, this cases often found in middle/lower class in society. They don't know the what's the problem about it. First I want to explain you, why government can make this policy happens, I believe that now, in this case, individual decision can make society problem. Government planning for example, maybe India or Indonesia have projected the planning for next 10 years, but of course because of the social paradigm that found in some of the society, the planning wont be work as well as projected, and of course it will be such a burden to society itself. Education for the children wont be better than before. Because of so many people, there's a huge gap between the avaibility of the job and the human resources, because of that, there' so many unemployment and crime rate. it is the way to solve the overpopulated problem. Because of the social paradigm in third world country, and they don't know what is the real problem because of it, the one child policy become make sense. With fine, socialization and etc that i had explained to you before, the middle lower class will think more carefully and knowing the real problem itself. In china it worked, and the planning in china worked also.
Heaven would mostly be filled with Atheists.

Fair point. But I have a rebuttal. Since heaven and god are known to exist in this scenario, It necessarily follows that those two things were witnessed and somehow made it back to empirical study. The reason that it follows is because this is the only way that we could know it scientifically. Therefore, In this scenario, We have somehow made contact with heaven and can study it. So now we have empirical science in heaven. It also necessarily follows that if we're interacting with heaven, That it has physical properties and so does god, Which also means that we can quantify gods limits, Interview him, Learn his moral code and facilitate the hypothetical. So morally speaking, If god let us see heaven and didn't kill us on sight. We can assume that he's not an absolute savage. Heaven is pretty awesome, So he cares about mortals enough to give them some happiness. It logically follows that such a god would not have eternal hell. So it would have to be a finite hell, Probably consistent of mostly mundane punishments. Nothing gory. Your floor.
Heaven would mostly be filled with Atheists.

Again, Even if heaven/God was revealed to us. How do we directly communicate with him? Quantum entanglement? In this case God/heaven would be real, The problem is they are completely different from humans. There obviously is an objective answer as you stated. However, It is a huge gamble to take, Since there really is nothing backing it up. There is a point where logic fails, And limitations of science. This is basically comparing something that we know about, And something we don't know about. My point is, In the end all you can create are claims and speculations. We already established in this scenario that heaven/God are real however.
Heaven would mostly be filled with Atheists.

Sure. Empirically, We cannot test for a heaven. However, This is a hypothetical, So we are granted the first two presuppositions. We have good reason to believe that a god would have agency at or above a human level, So I think it would be a justified portrayal. We could assume that certain truths of reality hold in heaven. Identity law for instance. It would probably be impossible for two people to occupy the same space, Etc. From this, We could draw certain strong inductive arguments. Gravity is a strong inductive argument and it seems to work nicely, So I think this is a fine standard. This would be enough to get us to a starting scenario. The keys questions will be A) Is god moral? B) Does hell exist? C) Are there places in between heaven and hell? Further questions will follow depending on the paths. B and C cannot be determined without first assuming a value for A. Besides the two obvious answers to A, There can be a virtually limitless subset of moral dynamics within god. My first point from here will be that there are at bare minimum, Tens of thousands of religions. All of these religions have problematic contradictions. It logically follows that all of them can't be right. Only one of them can be completely right and maybe a few could hit the mark but messed up the nuances. It could also follow that none of them are true. I think this shows that we should not rely on religious texts for answers here. My second point is that evidence can be extrapolated from lack of evidence. Since god has never shown himself on earth, For instance, We can safely assume that god has a disposition to not being on earth. We just learned something about god. We can look at the world that god made and find that god has a disposition for using the golden ratio. We can do this with everything until we see the congruence in it. The world is a reflection of god's disposition. This leads me to believe that god's disposition would be like that of the worlds and therefore we can judge the answer to A with a higher degree of accuracy. Maybe not certainty. But we're already in heaven right now. No where to go from here but up. I think god would have a mixed morality and would only send people to hell temporarily to reach some end that god deems moral. As for faith and axioms. There is a concept in philosophy that existential propositions are self justifying. For instance, If you've only ever seen apples in movies, But not in real life, You might be incredulous if I told you that apples were real. You might ask for proof, I could pull out the apple, Show it to you, Slice it open, Reveal that all of it's properties match that of the apples in the movies and the apple would have proved it all to you without using any logic. The reason I bring this up is because if we're in a situation where god and heaven reveal themselves, Those would be existential propositions and therefore would be self justifying. That means any consistency we see in them can be used for induction like with any other existential proposition in the universe. Your floor.