BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Therapeutic Cloning

Overall, Therapeutic cloning, the cloning of stem cells to produce a cloned organ vital for living, is unethical. When preforming therapeutic cloning and using the clones for body parts is not unlike creating slaves. Shouldn't the clones created have the same rights as humans? It is already known that we can clone, and that we can splice DNA. It is a small step from those being individual sciences to using them in a combined effort to create a "super-human." There has been talk of world leaders using these "super humans" in their armies. As you can see, we don't know that this can be prevented if cloning was allowed. An extreme would be clones taking over the world. The "super-human" would be an example of how the technology is not controlled. Since the act of cloning is so new, no one knows all the down sides of it. Though some stem cell research is successful, some tests in which stem cells are used, result in the stem cells turning into tumors. Methods have to be developed that will cure or treat diseases with embryonic stem cells. This looks promising. Research with adult stem cells, which has been underway for many years, has shown great promise. Unfortunately, adult cells are limited in their application. In today's world, cloning is unquestionably expensive. Just the cloning of Dolly cost over 5 million dollars. Considering humans are much more complex than sheep, the price would be undoubtedly higher. Because of the high price, not everyone would have a fair opportunity to even consider therapeutic cloning. The high price would put a huge stress and guilt on families who cannot afford the service. If cloning were to become legal, there would most likely be a "black market" for the organs", similar to the illegal drug dealing industry. Even if therapeutic cloning were to become available to everyone, it would cause even bigger problems. Think about it, if you could just replace every part of you that was failing, how long would you live for? There would be a drastic decline in the death rate, and the birth rate would stay the same. This would quickly lead to overpopulation. Naturally, the overpopulation will cause an increase in crime and violence As you can see, therapeutic cloning may seem good at first, but once looked at closely, you see that the negatives greatly outweigh the positives
Therapeutic Cloning

Secondly, i would like to close this argument while restating why therapeutic cloning is beneficial to today's society. Again, Therapeutic cloning introduces an organ to the patient's body that is directly tied with their personal DNA, allowing 1. Minimal chance of infection 2. No need for a matching organ donor 3. Minimal chance of transplant rejection 4. No need for a second party surgery 5. Minimal chance of tissue rejection 6. No waiting list for available organs 7. Minimal time in a state of discomfort This would also account for people with rare blood types, who sometimes wait years for a perfect match. Allowing the practice of therapeutic cloning would illuminate that wait all together. Therapeutic cloning would drastically change the process for organ donations and transplants for the better. 1. A donor with similar DNA would no longer be needed. This reduces the risk of such a chancy surgery. 2. A donor with the same blood type would no longer be needed. This helps the millions who were born with rare blood types. 3. Therapeutic cloning allows for scientists to invest time researching on how to genetically modify certain animals so their organs can potentially be transplanted into humans Therapeutic cloning would help to advance out knowledge on the growth of cells and how muscles regenerate. This knowledge would lead to further understanding of the human body, and a convinced development of new treatments and cures available.
Therapeutic Cloning

If two people were to have the exact same DNA, and one of them committed a crime, you would not be able to use DNA samples as evidence. Therefore, you could not fully prove someone guilty. As said in our first argument, the technology is not fully controlled. Talking about transferring animal organs into humans is way out the question at this point when the success rate isn't the best for human transplants. Jesse Gelsinger was born with ornithine transcarbamoylase (OTC) deficiency, a rare metabolic disorder that disables the liver and causes a toxic buildup of ammonia. He volunteered for gene-therapy program last September at the University of Pennsylvania because gene therapy had been hailed as the new frontier of medicine. The experiment entailed patients injected with corrective genes to replace the missing or defective ones. The purpose was a commendable one, to save lives. Within 24 hours after Jesse received his first infusion, he was suffering from a life-threatening clotting disorder which red blood cells were breaking down faster than the liver could metabolize them. He now is known as the first patient to die directly from the result of gene therapy. His father who encouraged him to do this said to a senate subcommittee investigating this that he was not given all the information. Such as side effects and that lab monkeys have died during the same experiment. (Death by research People 2/21/2000) By putting animal organs into a human it raises many questions. Would they still be considered human? And would they have equal rights as humans? Through Genetic research and use of this technology the advantage of curing diseases and its ability to treat and cure genetic flaws diseases is an ethical goal. But the potential to create new species with gene splicing is not. Serious questions about the ethical legitimacy and potential abuses surround this new science. Also, as mentioned in our first argument again, by saving so many lives through "unlimited transplants" the population would increase drastically and the life expectancy would go up. Therefore the crime rates would go up and over population would become a problem.
Therapeutic Cloning

In your Cost/Black Market Organs, you say that therapeutic cloning would be expensive and thus would only be available to the rich. However, one of the purposes of this research is to reduce the cost of therapeutic cloning and organs to enable them to be more readily available. And even if it still is expensive, it's better to help just the rich than no one at all. Also, with the orphan and adoption argument, this wouldn't be a problem because no humans would be cloned; organs would be cloned for use in transplants. For the overpopulation argument, it's true that we need to curtail our population growth, but I don't think that allowing people to die when it's very possible to save them is the right way to do it. There are much better alternatives, like education and contraceptives. Refusing to research therapeutic cloning because it would save people's lives is a backward and unethical argument. We have many lifesaving medications today, and if someone had initially refused to research them, they would not be available, and many people would have died.
Matthew 24 addresses a 1st century Jewish audience. All its prophesies were fulfilled by AD 70.

Matthew 24 primarily addresses the 1st century generation Jesus came to and all its prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. PGA - Pro Skepticalone - Con 1st Round is the stating of the terms and for Con to accept or reject the terms of the debate. 2nd Round is our opening statement for each of us to state our positions with a maximum of four argumentation lines 3rd, and 4th Rounds are to refute the others position with the option of adding one additional line of argumentation per round. 5th Round - no new arguments. Final rebuttal and conclusion. Shared burden of proof means that both Pro and Con will address each of the others arguments.
.999999999(repeating) is equal to 1

.999... is equal to one. First i would like to represent this using digit manipulation... x=.999... 10x=9.999... 10x-x=9.999...-.999... 9x=9 x=1 .999...=1 Now, .999... can be explained through an infinite series where, .999... is a sum with a common ratio (1/10), so .999...=9(1/10)+9(1/10)(squared)+9(1/10)(cubed) +....=[(9(1/10)/(1-(1/10))]=1 Also, using fractions, 1/3=.33... 2/3=.66... so thus, 3/3=.99... .333...=1/3 3*.333...=3*(1/3) =3*1/(1/3) .999...=1 .111=1/9 9*.111...=9*(1/9)=9*1/(1/9) .999...=1 Both equations are valid due to the Transitive Property [If you don' know the Transitive property, I will state it... Transitive Property- If a=b and b=c then a=c] http://www.mathmojo.com... http://polymathematics.typepad.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.greatplay.net... I look forward to meeting my opponent, and would like to listen to their argument. Best of luck, Julius Caesar!!
family guy vs. the simpsons

I would like to extend my thanks to abortionisillegal123 for challenging me to debate this grave and important matter and I should like to duly respond as follows: The Simpsons aren't gay. Lisa might be bi-curious but there is nothing to suggest that any other member of the family has homosexual tendencies. Anyway, The Simpsons is a better show because it is more realistic. It represents the life of an average American family with characters you can believe in. Not like Family Guy. How come Stewie the baby has a British accent for example? And how come Brian the dog can talk? Plus dogs are normally called "Fido" or "Rover" or "Gnasher" - nobody names their dogs after top international online debaters! The resolution is negated. Thank you.
It is physically possible to do nothing.

I shall define 'to do nothing' in a formal manner for sake of no ambiguity.To do nothing is to carry out no physical action for at least an instantaneous moment of time.Despite being mentally impossible to do nothing since the mind is in itself doing something by existing it is physically possible to do nothing.Physical: relating to the body as opposed to the mind.[1]The body can carry out no action for an instant of time by remaining perfectly still. A common method would be by anaesthesia, another is when it is laying very still and for an instant in time carries out no action whatsoever. Additionally, all dead bodies physically do nothing, but I would assume my opponent is referring to living beings only.When one undergoes a heart attack, for an instant on the hospital bed they can often lay there with no pulse whatsoever and until one using electric pads to wake them, they are essentially doing nothing, not beating the heart, not breathing for that instant in time.In conclusion, although rare, there are some states in which a physical entity can be in which it does nothing.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
It is physically possible to do nothing.

My job is to prove Pro's claims false, as well as proving my own claims correct. By breaking these rules, you forfeit all 7 points. When saying "doing nothing", I am referring to the literal definition of the words, meaning not taking part in any actions. I would like to thanks whoever accepts this debate. My position is that it is physically impossible to literally do nothing. -=Debate Parameters=- Rounds: 5 Voting: 7 days Arguments: 3 days Characters per Argument: 8,000 All votes must have comments, no votebombing, otherwise someone must counter them.
It is physically possible to do nothing.

Well, time for our closing. I will remind our audience that Pro forfeited 7 points to me, so if Pro fails to give me those points, someone who is voting should give a 7-point vote towards me, though only one voter should do such. I would like to thanks Pro for debating with me, and I hope to have the opportunity to debate with him again. I would like to urge the voters to vote for who they believe deserved the victory under the voting criteria given at the top of the page. Thanks, and back to Pro.
It is physically possible to do nothing.

Even though I did forfeit a round, it was not against the specified rules, and I still said that violation of any of the rules results in a 7-point forfeit. Now, back the the argument. You bring back the argument on anaesthesia. Must I remind you that the topic pertains to whether it is physically possible, meaning, as you suggested, pertaining to the body, not the mind? If one is unconsious is irrelevant when the mind is irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe I should rephrase one of my statements: under anaestheia, the body is not laying on the bed, but rather, it is resting on the bed. Pro said: Look at Stephen hawking. if we gave him anaesthesia and left him in his wheelchair he wouldn't be laying, Look at Stephen hawking. if we gave him anaesthesia and left him in his wheelchair he wouldn't be laying, he's just sit there. when under anesthesia they way in which your body is positioned is merely whatever is possible to do with 0% activity, you are completely and utterly limp and immobile, whatever you collide with, you do nothing to stop, whether that's a bed or a wheelchair. Now, let me emphasize on the ending of your second sentence: "he's just sit there". Exactly. Your wording is proving me right. We would be sitting, regardless of whether he is doing it counsciously or not. Now, I may be pulling a cheap shot over here right now, but would still be committing the action of existing, which is also independent on whether somebody is conscious. Now, you may be thinking "well, what if the body stopped existing?" In that case, I would say that there would be no subject. What I mean is this: Let's say a man named John's body was burned. Someone could say that John is doing nothing, but in reality, there is no John at all now. Pro also said: "This applies for dead people" No it doesn't, a dead person is literally doing nothing. I have two things to say to this. Number one: I just refuted that in my previous statements, and number two: you have no basis to state this on, so I have the right to dismiss this statement. Back to you, Pro.
It is physically possible to do nothing.

I broke a (very minor) rule you forfeited a round. Let's say fair play okay? Truce?Standing, sitting and laying are all not doing nothing. I agree. However, Anaesthesia makes one completely unconscious and totally incapable of any movement. They are not laying on the hospital bed but are limp and immobile And their immobility leads them to fall to whatever ground there is to rest on, in this case the bed. The person, when under anaesthesia is in fact doing nothing. They are not laying on a bed, the be is actually holding them. They are not in control of a single muscle in the body at all and couldn't stop laying if they wanted to.Look at Stephen hawking. if we gave him anaesthesia and left him in his wheelchair he wouldn't be laying, he's just sit there. when under anesthesia they way in which your body is positioned is merely whatever is possible to do with 0% activity, you are completely and utterly limp and immobile, whatever you collide with, you do nothing to stop, whether that's a bed or a wheelchair."This applies for dead people" No it doesn't, a dead person is literally doing nothing.Over to you con.
It is physically possible to do nothing.

Oops, missed the deadline for the previous round, but it doesn't matter much. I take it you didn't read the rules? You gave arguments in the 1st round, when I said that R1 was for acceptance, and what was the punishment for breaking a rule? Simple. A seven-point forfeit. So yeah, I get those. So, to my arguments. Pro said: The body can carry out no action for an instant of time by remaining perfectly still. A common method would be by anaesthesia, another is when it is laying very still and for an instant in time carries out no action whatsoever. Additionally, all dead bodies physically do nothing, but I would assume my opponent is referring to living beings only. My rebuttal: remaining still? So by standing? In that case, the body is carrying out the action of standing. If you taking about sitting, then the same applies for sitting. Now, for anaesthesia. After someone is injected with it, your body will most likely be lying down, another action. This applies for dead people and people undergoing heart attacks as well, as you do not need consciousness for your body to carry out these actions, after all, the definition of "physical" that you gave us is "relating to the body as opposed to the mind". I apologize for forfeiting R2, but I have been distracted. Anyways, I bring the arguments to Pro.
Conversion Therapy

You didn't specify What Conversion Therapy was, and frankly I didn't research it. SO, given that I am defending Conversion Therapy, and NOT it's practitioners, or common misrepresentation I have accepted. As such, I will be judged first, Based on whether or not I am On-topic, and secondly if whether or not My presumed argument was Applicable, and thirdly for the arguments filed. As such. Good day sir. I am pro conversion therapy. WHy? Because I believe in it's effectiveness. I will not consider your argument without first submitting my own. SO I will contribute my round three for rebuttals. Conversion Therapy: Instilling Theism in a patient, Client or Subject. // Or otherwise, instilling some other perspective, ideology or idea.
Conversion Therapy

This debate will assess the effectiveness of Conversion Therapy, and whether it should even be legal. Pro will argue that conversion therapy is a positive method that should be legal, while Con will conversion therapy is a negative practice that should be illegal. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Gay marriage

What? A "horrible disease?" You're justifying a genocide because some of the people had a "horrible disease?" That's like Americans being mass murdered because some of us have AIDS! The Israelites were WRONG, and God told them to do it! Besides, Hitler killed a bunch of disabled people, and a lot of them had "horrible diseases." No, the Bible says "and thou shalt not eat (blank)" "not commit (blank)" "not begin (blank)." It doesn't say "the most important thing you must remember is not to (blank)" or "this verse is more important than verse Leviticus 11:6, but less important than Leviticus 12:13." If the Bible says something, it's just a command. There's no qualifiers on it, no values attached to it, and everything you can say about it is YOUR judgement. I pass my own judgement, which is just as valid as yours.
Gay marriage

"Ok, I'd assumed you'd read the Old Testament (I've read the LEGO version; try it), but I will explain. Here are a few examples: Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and butt." Poor Amalekites! Sucks to be them. God-ordered genocide. NUMBERS 21:3 The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who completely destroyed them and their towns (Not a verbatim quote, but captures the meaning) Canaanites bite the dust; Israelites move in, just like God says. NUMBERS 31:17-18 (In these verses, Moses is commanded to kill the Midianites, except for the virgin women, who are raped) So God is very violent, and uses just the same spread-the-race-kill-the-enemies rhetoric that Hitler favored in his genocides (Hitler being Christian, God also condoned those). Let me ask you which is worse: A person who DOES follow the Bible literally doing these things, or a homosexual person who does NOT follow the Bible literally getting married." This was for a very good reason, you see, when people excavated the site, they discovered that they all were plagued with a horrible disease, which is so slow that they were better off dead. "As you said yourself: "This stuff is up for interpretation." You say the hygiene laws are the LEAST important part of the Bible; I say that the least important part of the Bible darn well better be the part where God orders genocides, or else Christians would have done that. Oh wait... Anyway, I think what you don't understand is that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is no more important or valid than mine is. The Bible is a highly confusing book that bosses people around. NO ONE knows what it really says. So if a homosexual person says that the least important part of the Bible is the part that says he or she can't marry the person they love, then they've got just as valid a point as a person who says that the least important part is the one that says that they can't eat chameleons (no, really). The Bible itself sure doesn't say which is the most important. It just gives commands, and Christian sects are who interprets them. So YOU can't force YOUR judgement onto ME about what the Bible says; I'm free to make my own judgement."" Of the laws, it is least important, and no, it is not up for interpretation, it says that something is wrong, it means just that, THE END.
Gay marriage

Ok, I'd assumed you'd read the Old Testament (I've read the LEGO version; try it), but I will explain. Here are a few examples: Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and butt." Poor Amalekites! Sucks to be them. God-ordered genocide. NUMBERS 21:3 The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who completely destroyed them and their towns (Not a verbatim quote, but captures the meaning) Canaanites bite the dust; Israelites move in, just like God says. NUMBERS 31:17-18 (In these verses, Moses is commanded to kill the Midianites, except for the virgin women, who are raped) So God is very violent, and uses just the same spread-the-race-kill-the-enemies rhetoric that Hitler favored in his genocides (Hitler being Christian, God also condoned those). Let me ask you which is worse: A person who DOES follow the Bible literally doing these things, or a homosexual person who does NOT follow the Bible literally getting married. As you said yourself: "This stuff is up for interpretation." You say the hygiene laws are the LEAST important part of the Bible; I say that the least important part of the Bible darn well better be the part where God orders genocides, or else Christians would have done that. Oh wait... Anyway, I think what you don't understand is that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is no more important or valid than mine is. The Bible is a highly confusing book that bosses people around. NO ONE knows what it really says. So if a homosexual person says that the least important part of the Bible is the part that says he or she can't marry the person they love, then they've got just as valid a point as a person who says that the least important part is the one that says that they can't eat chameleons (no, really). The Bible itself sure doesn't say which is the most important. It just gives commands, and Christian sects are who interprets them. So YOU can't force YOUR judgement onto ME about what the Bible says; I'm free to make my own judgement.