BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex Education Shoud be Taught Rather Than Abstinence Only

I must say thank you for this debate. I do enjoy how you defined abstinence making it a form of sex education. I have one question for you how can I debate that a form of sex education is better than sex education? ( But I'll be doing exactly that) Intro: For the Aff. to win this debate my opponent must prove that sex education " will allow for a safer and healthier life-style," so I suppose my opponent's argument will be that if you are better informed on the diseases when or while having sex you will use protection that is inconclusive on whether it (protection) works or not. Diseases such as HIV, chlamydia, Genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhea, hepatitis A/B/C, syphilis, AIDS, trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis, thrush, scabies, crabs, molluscum contagiosum, chancroid, CMV, Trich, PID, HPV, NGU, etc. of course these are just a few disease that can be spread during sex being informed about them doesn't stop the spreading of diseases. If the reason for teaching sex education is because " it will allow for a safer and healthier life-style," then that argument is moot; instead teach a form of safe sex called abstinence which you simply don't have sex thereby allowing for a safer and healthier life-style. C1-Before I go on I must point out the oddness in defining "Abstinence" as " a form of sex education that emphasizes ABSTINENCE from sex," I have to say that defining a word using the same word that logic escapes me. While some teens are not afraid of a bad reputation for haEcving sex others are, they don't want to be that kid, in which case being that kid would cause them depression and so would be a detriment to their health that's why being abstinent doesn't cause depression which help live a healthier life style. Having safe sex might cause pregnancy that not very healthy for a teen; you have school, extra curricular activities, AP exams, honors programs, house problems, etc. So in which case the person pregnant might not be able to deal with pregnancy which does not cause a safe and healthy life style. Couples who wait to have sex are more likely to not have a divorce and more likely to have better and safer sex. Abstinence is cheap and no side effects. It is a better and healthier choice. C2 - In Uganda there was about to be an AIDS epidemic they used an ABC program abstinence, be faithful, and condoms. Granted their were C's but what helped these people was monogamy and abstinence. They went from 21% in 1991 to 6% in 2000 thanks to abstaining from sex before marriage and abstaining from sex outside marriage. While sex education might be realistic abstinence cause for a safer and healthier life style. again thank you for this debate sorry for my lateness
Sex Education Shoud be Taught Rather Than Abstinence Only

I will be arguing Pro, in that Sex Education is more beneficial to the student in that it will allow for a safer and healthier life-style. Con will be arguing the opposite that Abstinence only programs are more beneficial to the students. Abstinence-only sex education is defined as "a form of sex education that emphasizes abstinence from sex, and often excludes many other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex." http://en.wikipedia.org... Sex Education will be defined as a term used to describe education about human sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, reproductive health, emotional relations, reproductive rights and responsibilities, abstinence, contraception, and other aspects of human sexual behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org... Beneficial is defined as "conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful" http://dictionary.reference.com...
Animal Cloning

Animal cloning can lead to the new creation of new organs. Patients in need of transplants can receive a easy replacement of internal organs and tissues, instead of waiting for suitable organ donors alive or dead. Since the transplanted organs contains most of the recipient's genes, there is a lesser chance for rejection as well. Therapeutic cloning also enables scientists to study regeneration of organs. The recipient would not need to wait on a donor to die before receiving a life-saving organ. There would be no need for an organ donor and no surgery required for the second party. Works Cited: http://www.ehow.com...http://www.cloneorgans.com...
Animal Cloning

Infertility issues among couples can be resolved for infertile animals if animal cloning was legal. Parents will know exactly how their clone is going to turn out. These treatments involve a great deal of emotional and physical trauma, but can help those suffering from infertility to have a child. A infertile male animal can have cloned and the undamaged sperm used. Likewise, an infertile women animal can have an egg cloned and the fertile egg used for conception. In extreme cases a person can be cloned so a sibling is conceived. Cloning techniques offers infertile couples the promise of greatly improving the odds of having a baby. On successful division a pre implantation embryo's created and this is called blastocyst. Individuals born through this process would have similar nuclear genes like those in adult cells, but they would not resemble the adults exactly. Works Cited: http://infojug.cm... http://adpoting.adoption.com...
Animal Cloning

Animal cloning can also help endangered animals who are facing extension. It may also be used to introduce a new or endangered breed into a country without risk of disease transmission by transport of animals. Clones could theoretically increase the genetic diversity of an endangered population if researchers have access to preserved DNA from many different individuals. Since the early 2000's, using the same technique that produced Dolly, researchers have cloned several endangered and even extinct mammals, including a mouflon sheep and a borne known as a gaur in 2001; a kind of wild cattle called a banteng in 2003; a wild goat known as the Pyrenean ibex in 2009; and wild coyotes in 2012. http://www.salon.com.... http://www.effab.org...
Animal Cloning

Improvement in animal breeding can be a result of animal cloning. Chances of heritable conditioned can be limited. It is possible to provide a bone marrow for a sibling or umbilical stem cells that are a match for a sibling. Through several generation of selective breeding you are able to produce a unique species or pure strain of the organism in question. Cloning is a breeding method that does not manipulate the animal's genetic make-up nor changing animal's DNA. It is a reliable way of needs and consumer demand. Works Cited: hhtp://animal_cloning.net...http://www.wisegeek.com...
Animal Cloning

Animal cloning could lead to better results and accuracy in predicting an outcome of any medicine or drug. It allows researchers to test for possible cures or treatments of existing diseases and disorders such as Parson's and diabetes. It may be possible to learn more about the molecular causes of disease by studying embryonic stem cell lines from cloned embryos derived from the cells of animals or humans with different diseases. For instance, the same Scottish researcher who cloned Dolly have cloned other sheep that have been generally modified to produce milk that contains a human protein essential for blood clotting.Works Cited: http://www.genome.gov...
Gay Marriage

Sister, the world existing is to me enough proof that god exists. But you have no proof that people are born gay. Did you know that back then George Washington said that if we look away from god this country will not survive. Guess what this country is becoming worse and worse. The economy is horrible and it's not just the country it's the whole world. With all the corruption(including homosexuality) in the world. Well back then in the times of noah(when the world ended) there was gay people and a lot of corruption go on. So god flooded the whole world and only Noah, his family, and a few different types of animals survived to reproduce. Noah and his family survived because they were very faithful. When the world ends again(judgement day) which I don't know when it will. It will be different than the first time.homosexuality is wrong. God knows its wrong. Gods always right.
Gay Marriage

Honestly some Christians do hate gay people. But they shouldn't hate anyone. I don't hate homosexuals. It's wrong though. People aren't born gay, they're influenced by the Environment they live in. Even if their parents aren't gay they might be influenced by tv shows or the Internet.homosexuality is love but its love corrupted. More and more people are becoming homosexual but god will return one day. And wipe all sin and send all demons to hell for a long time. Love that is pure should stay pure, not corrupted.
Gay Marriage

Well, I have no problem with it whatsoever. My older sister and her partner are two normal grown women. I don't understand why that is wrong. Scientific studies have shown that gays are born gay. How can a Christian honestly preach love then show so much hate? I'm not in any way religious, but I know a lot about many religions. I have nothing against it I'm just a girl of logic and science. Also, how does anyone have the right to say someone Else's way of living is wrong? To me, love is love and it should stay that way.
Stop decimating the Constitution

First, I never said amendments were decimating the Constitution. I said interpretations were doing so. The actions by the justice system (and others that I was going to present), are not changes they are the decimating behaviors. Below is Article V as copied and pasted from the words in the Original Constitution:Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. As outlined in bold italic print after 1808, Congress (the Government), may only propose, an amendment. Only three fourths of the several States can ratify it and it must be ratified before it changes or effects the Constitution. Several years ago, Congress proposed an amendment giving equal rights to women. The required amount of States did not ratified it and it never became a part. You are using incorrect info to not respond. I am requesting for you to cite the portion of the Constitution that allows the Government to change it anywhere. There is no other body, group or system that can make the change. Nothing I have stated makes the debate irrelevant, it is your statement that makes your reasoning irrelevant. This is the last time I am going to respond to this ridiculous statement.
Stop decimating the Constitution

You do realize the government has a right to amend the constitution in any way it sees fit? 1. An answer to that is simply that if they are convicted would you want to risk another crime being committed by that person wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? Say a person was a convicted pedophile. Would you want him or her to walk around on the streets? I think not. Although your pint is irrelevant to your debate anyways considering you are asking to stop decimating the constitution rather than focusing on exactly what they change. 2. by increasing the time and complexity of the trial is making it so that it is more accurate to determine whether or not that person is guilty or not. And again the government can amend the Constitution in any way it sees fit. As bad as it sounds the way things usually go today is guilty until proven innocent. But that is Irrelevant to your point as I stated in the above paragraph. 3. If someone confesses doesn't that mean they still have some good in them? At least some common sense to just confess to make things easier and go more smoothly again what does this have to do with decimating the constitution. And if the prosecution includes the individual that the crime was committed against doesn't he or she have a voice in the punishment of the criminal? 4. When the jury says that I believe they are trying to make the point that this person is still in suspicion while not being totally guilty he or she is still not completely innocent. This often leads to further trials. 5.Well what would you want the prosecutor to do? He is trying to prove the accused guilty not trying to prove the accused innocent. He is obviously still going to fight for what he thinks. And I doubt all prosecutors do that. 6.Simply because it is their job to prove the person guilty. Again obviously they are going to do everything they can to prove the person guilty, its their job. If you were a prosecutor would you try to prove a person innocent? mind you the money you get from the trial will help you feed your family. Also again this is totally irrelevant to the system of justice while you are simply basically accusing prosecutors to be mean. And again as all your points are they are Irrelevant to your argument which is Stop Decimating the Constitution to which I replied the government can amend the constitution in any way they see fit. 7. You do realize that is the system courts have been using since the Constitution so once again your argument of stop Decimating The Constitution is irrelevant.
Is the Confederate flag (rebel flag) a symbol of racism

Very nice argument, Mayday. As I said before, the flag most call the rebel flag was in actuality just a battle flag, whereas the actual flag of the Confederacy was called the Stars and Bars, which looked too similar to the American flag, so for battles an alternative was used. Besides, these days the flag is more synonymous with southern pride and non-conformity than it is with racism, similar to how plenty of surfers and bikers whose fathers fought in World War 2 would wear various Nazi associated medals and imagery that their fathers plundered from Nazi Germany, even though they had no racist beliefs and wore it for non-conformity or shock value purposes. (I'm aware that there are a lot of racist bikers, but I'm just saying.) And since Pro claimed "Symbols are what we make of them", what about the swastika? The symbol in this day and age is the most well-known of all the Nazi symbols, and thus totally racist, at least in the Western world. But, before Hitler came into power, it was a common Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist symbol and is still used to this day as a symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism, despite stigmatization in the West. So, getting back to the Confederate flag, what a symbol is originally created for and is currently used for all depends on the context, and the ideals one actually has. Courtesy of the folks down at ADL, on their entry on the Confederate flag, they said, "However, because of the continued use of the flag by non-extremists, one should not automatically assume that display of the flag is racist or white supremacist in nature. The symbol should only be judged in context." Then it shows multiple images of racists with rebel flags and swastikas, weapons, and the like. I will agree that in such instances, the flag is a symbol of racism, those flying it in those cases should be looked on as racist. But if a redneck in Georgia is flying the flag from his truck with a buddy of his in the shotgun seat riding home from deer hunting drives by me, I'm not going to think he's inherently a racist. But nonetheless, I do appreciate Pro debating this controversial subject with me. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... adl.org "Confederate Flag"
Is the Confederate flag (rebel flag) a symbol of racism

Thank you, Con.I fully am in favor of the motion that the Rebel Flag, or the Confederate Flag, is a racist symbol. First and foremost, let's examine the reasoning behind the creation of the flag. The flag was conceived to differentiate the North and the South during the Civil War. It was created to glorify the south's ideal of an independant nation, with slaves and unequal rights for African Americans. So, the flag was specifically designed for a racist ideal, for a racist state. Symbols are what we make of them, the flag's sole purpose was a racist purpose, Con omitted that from his argument. The United State's flag symbolizes our ideals and beliefs as embodied in the Constitution. Likewise for the Confederate flag, it symbolizes their ideology as enshrined in their constitution. I am sure we're all aware, the South's constitution is a tremendously racist one. Judge for yourself : Article I Section 9 reads "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." [1] Or let me quote Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens : Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth… [2] Regarding Con's argument on the Klan's Grand Wizards passing a memo banning the flag as a symbol of the KKK, I would have to see valid source before addressing the claim. Notwithstanding, it mustn't be omitted that the KKK were founded by Confederates [3], which again, would explain the Klan's relationship with flag. Finally adressing Con's last argument, that claim is deflective, Con argues that Hitler banning the flag equates to it being exonerated of its racist past, that is completely refutable. To conclude I would like to remind the voters the troubling facts behind the Rebel Flag. It was conceived during the war as thousands rallied behind that flag to fight and kill, to assure white supremacy and slavery. There's no pride to be found in a defunct flag representing a defunct governement whose sole raison d'etre (reason/justification of existence) was to preserve an entire race enslaved. Sources : [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is the Confederate flag (rebel flag) a symbol of racism

Thanks for accepting to debate this topic, because regardless of what people at Berkeley University, or the MSNBC meat puppets, or the folks down at Huffington Post state, I am against the notion that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol, and here's why. First off, if someone states that the flag flew over slavery, that's an incorrect statement. The flag which has become known as the Confederate flag was actually a battle flag, never to be flown over a building or the like. Besides, the flag never flew on the slave ships, but do you know what flag did fly over those ships? The American flag, the Stars and Stripes. If you wanna talk flags over slavery, let's suppose for a second the Confederate flag did fly over buildings. The Confederate flag only flew over slavery for about 4 years, but the Stars and Stripes did for well over 70 years. I know the lesser of two evils is still evil, but I'm just saying. Next thing I always hear, the Klan (KKK) flies the flag. I looked into it and as it turns out, one of the "Grand Wizards" of the Klan sent out a memo to various leaders telling them not to fly the flag because they didn't want to be associated with the flag. So, the Klan didn't want to be associated with the Confederate flag, which tells me that they don't use it. "But ForestMan, I see some rebel flags at the rallies!" You might, but what flag will you always see beyond a shadow of a doubt at any Klan rally? The American flag. Now onto the mother of all racist crews; the Nazis and Neo-Nazis. Some say that they often fly Confederate flags, so the flag is racist. But if they are true neo-nazis, they still follow Hitler's teachings, right? Well, Hitler actually banned the Confederate flag in the 1930's, because he recognized the anti-totalitarian message behind the flag, which contrasted with the totalitarian system Hitler sat over and Hitler banned the Confederate flag. So I'd like to hear what you gotta say. Thanks again for accepting my challenge.
Is the Confederate flag (rebel flag) a symbol of racism

Thank you, Con.Firstly, I would like to begin my round by asserting that, as I argued in the previous round, the Rebel flag is a symbol of racism. It was conceived by racists to differentiate them, as they engaged in a bloody civil war whose sole purpose, (I am repeating myself, aren't I?) was to maintain a slave-owning country. As to Con's claim about today's usage of the flag, I would like to ripost by saying that if the history of the flag was studied by those who harbour it today, I believe they would show more reluctance before thinking that it is representative of pride for southerners; unless, slavery and racism is part of Southern pride. Flying the flag today does not make it okay, just like flying it in the 1960's or during the Civil War, did not exonerate it in any form. The meaning doesn't change, the flag sole purpose was to represent racism.Furthermore, Con introduce the Swastika claim; the comparaison between the Confederate/Rebel flag and the Swastika. This is a common argument but let's not omit that the Swastika was used centuries ago, across the globe, and as a symbol of good, before Adolf Hitler violated it for his own purpose. In sharp contrast to the Rebel flag that was specifically designed for a racist state. Lastly, Merriam-Webster Dictionnary describes a symbol by the following : symbol noun sym·bol \G2;sim-bəl\ : an action, object, event, etc., that expresses or represents a particular idea or quality : a letter, group of letters, character, or picture that is used instead of a word or group of words [1] The Confederate flag is : a flag, that expresses a racist idea, (the one imbedded in the southerners state of mind during the Civil War years), thus, it conforms to the motion of the debate, that the flag is a racist symbol.To conclude, I hope I have proven to Con and the voters that the Rebel flag is indeed a racist flag. The flag to which thousands of southerners, rallied to, to maintain in incredibly racist lifestyle, for which they were ready to kill. It is the flag of those who went to war with The United States of America over their 'god-given right to enslave'. The flag should stop being flown, as it is reminiscent of a shameful past in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, some still fly it, either by ignorance of the facts behind the flag, or outright racism, like the Ku Klux Klan. I would like to thank the voters and Con for taking part in this debate, and remind the voters to vote Pro.Source : [1] : http://www.merriam-webster.com...