BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

Genetic engineering may have a good cause, but ends don't always justify the means, especially when having to do with human lives. One of my main reasons is that it doesn't take the child into account. Genes create or help create every part of the human body, and any error could potentially result in deformity or worse. [1] Natural selection "edits" these genes out in nature, but when we have genetic engineers inserting them into a species that has needs and desires beyond the primal, base needs of survival and reproduction, things can go wrong. It is a risk the scientists know about, and to harm a perfectly healthy soon-to-be child because of a needless, risky procedure is immoral. Even if the procedure goes perfectly fine, the child might still be labeled a freak. This would cause the child's life to be less happy than if he or she were left natural. A second reason is that it does not take other people into account. If the procedure goes as planned, the child will be superior mentally, physically, and genetically. However, a superior human is still human. The child will naturally think himself/herself better than others and won't have any physical limitations to stop them from enforcing that superiority. Negligent parents, a traumatic experience, or the aforementioned teasing and "freak" mentality could all cause this child to become depressed and angry. They are not inherently a gift to society or a monster, and human nature suggests the latter could very well happen. A final reason is that playing God with people is unethical. Why did people have slaves? They were almost free work, and had to do anything you told them to. They were far superior workers from the employer's perspective, or else he wouldn't have bought slaves. That doesn't make slavery morally right. Making a superior human wouldn't guarantee they would be treated better, and it would make them more likely to be taken advantage of, or take advantage of others. As a worker they wouldn't be paid better, because why pay more than you have to? And when they reach the top, they could very well treat their inferiors poorly. Additionally, genetically engineering a person to do a certain task well, as would most definitely be the case in many cases, pressures the person to do that task, robbing them of free will. In conclusion, even well-intentioned genetic engineering can have adverse effects that make it immoral to practice for the purpose of creating a perfect human. [1] www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/genes_at_work.htm#ninds
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

Good luck to you too.No one knows how life began. The general consensus is this: Some sort energy, possibly lightning, struck a body of water in which amino acids were dissolved. This created the first, earliest form of life: A self-replicating molecule. This may have been something similar to modern DNA or RNA. Anyways, as this molecule self-replicated, malformities in the duplication process would occur. Most of these made the molecule inert and unable to reproduce. But some made it produce more than its competitors, and this was the very beginning of evolution. The most important stage in evolution was when one malformity was produced that allowed the duplicated molecules to work together. This led to the Cambrian explosion, and all complex life forms.Why do I feel the need to explain the history of life to you? Because, as you can see, we are naught but the most recent stage of a 3.8 billion year old chemical reaction. It is completely ethical, 100% moral, therefore, to attempt to make ourselves better. Assuming the geneticists are working towards a positive and not a negative end, it is OK to allow them to design perfect humans.
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

Resolution: There is nothing morally wrong with genetically engineering humans to make a desired child. Burden of Proof: The BoP rests with the Challenger, or the person attempting to lay moral claims.Definitions:GENETIC ENGINEERING-noun, Genetics. 1. the development and application of scientific methods, procedures,and technologies that permit direct manipulationof genetic materialin order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population. MORAL-adjective 1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of rightconduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.Rounds:1: Acceptance2: Opening Statements3: Refutations4: Counter-Refutations and Defences5: Closing Statement
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

Well, let us take a moment to examine Donald Trump. His nationalistic message is indeed much like Hitler's. And like Hitler, Trump has also written a book. The Art of the Deal, I believe. From what I know of it, he details methods of advertising and playing to the people's emotions. The very same thing he is doing to gain support. Trump very well knows the problems with his arguments, and he's using them to his advantage. Put simply, he's smart enough to act like an idiot. His brutal honesty has an appeal, and I can understand the reasons for supporting him. The point is, Trump's an intelligent guy, just like our hypothetical genetically engineered child. Hitler was a smart guy too. It indeed takes intelligence to overcome xenophobia, but this human would be adept at the art of manipulation. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but the few, namely the rich and powerful, often disagree. This child will almost definitely be among those groups, simply because he/she is smart enough to gain the money and power. From the child's perspective, everyone else would seem idiotic. When I was younger I thought the same, but realized it wasn't so. But this child truly would be intellectually and physically superior. This superiority complex could very well turn the genetically engineered child into a Hitler or Trump. They may benefit from hardships and grow from struggles, but they could easily also go down the path that the monsters of history have gone down before. I agree, we must move forward. However, there are ways we can change for the better without modifying our genetics riskily. We can strive to be better as we are. This generation does determine the future of mankind, and we can make it a good future by teaching our children, by solving the problems that face the world, and by joining together as a community. The whole world. It isn't individual strength that makes us great, it is what happens when we work together that makes us great. Thank you for this wonderful debate as well. I can see that you think hard, and are an intelligent person. If what I have seen of you while anonymously debating is any indication of what you are like all the time, I can tell that you are a good person and I hope you benefit those around you as much as you have benefitted me through this debate.
Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and logical circularises.

1) Holy god! Come on man! It is painfully obvious that what I am saying is the the genes get copied and passed on. Nothing "survives" persay because every living thing dies. What I am trying to say is that the genes(DNA) are copied by proteins(usually RNA) and are eventually passed on to the offspring of the individual. 2) On the topic of consciousness, i stick to my previous arguments. However, consciousness is not an evolutionry force. The evolutionary forces are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. The latter is what I have been trying to explain to you. Advice:Buy a book on basic biology.Do some research on the topic you are interested in. Be open to my point of view. Thanks for debating!
Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and logical circularises.

Well, yes but I thought it was obvious that I meant an exact copy of your ancestors genes. I thought that was clear and I am sorry if it was not. The definition is based off of scientific fact. Therefore, by definition is also, by extension, by science. This is the same conjecture as the old "A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square." It is just a more precise word. What should have been used is habitat. My example of bacteria was not about evolution but about consciousness. I thought that was clear but once again you have failed to realize that it was in context with your point about consciousness. Good Luck in the third round.
Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and logical circularises.

Genes do not survive by changing their surroundings (being passed on). They decay and die. I have none of the genes of my ancestors. The traits that survive are by definition, best suited, and the organisms that survive are, by definition, the fittest. By definition only. Environment is not geography. Environment is defined by a creatures needs. Geography is not defined by a creatures needs. Whether or not bacteria can see or taste, seeing and tasting do not affect matter and so cannot be involved in evolution.
Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and logical circularises.

I will use a similar format to yours as it is easier to read and compare: Genes obviously don't "survive," but they do get passed on through reproduction. Have you ever noticed that you look like your brother or sister or mom or dad? That is because some of their genes got passed on to you. Source: 7th Grade Biology When we say "survival of the fittest" it means that the organism that is best suited for the environment or that has the most useful traits will be the one to achieve higher through ecological competition, therefore surviving in the long term. Source: Common Sense Are you saying that it is just a coincidence that humans have similar everything to some monkey species? Or that a bunch of plants got together and just decided on the form of a tree? Species evolve or adapt depending on their ecosystem. The white rabbit is not white because of coincidence. It evolved to be white to blend in with its surroundings (snow). Source: 7th Grade Biology Environments change everyday. different species adapt to their environments. An environment is a place. So, yes, they can adapt. Source: 7th Grade Biology A bacterium cannot see or hear or feel or taste. Therefore it has little consciousness compared to humans. Consciousness is mainly based off of comparing organisms. All of this is based off of scientific fact that has been proven throughout the years.
Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and logical circularises.

Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and semantic, logical confusions. Here are five. 1) "survival of the gene" Even supposing that they were like life-forms, genes do not survive. Nothing survives. If the claim is that the pattern of the gene survives then that is transmigration. 2) "survival of the fittest" There can be no evidence that the "fittest" survive, because those that survive are deemed to be the fittest. As an empirical claim "survival of the fittest" is a logical circularity. 3) species evolve Species do not evolve. They do not "advance". They die out and others take their place. 4) creatures become adapted to their environment This is a circularity. Creatures become adapted to a geographical place. They do not become adapted to an environment because an environment is already defined by the needs and behaviours of the creature. 5) consciousness evolved as an aid to survival This is a supernatural doctrine. Consciousness does not affect matter, unless science can directly measure awareness and show that mind over matter is a possibility. These represent key ideas in evolution theory; variations on their nonsense permeate the entire evolutionary text.
The boarder wall is a waste of money

Let me Clarify, The debate is indeed of whether the border wall is a waste of money. However, The money is only wasted if it does not stop illegal immigrants from entering the USA, And I have proved that it does not stop illegal migration to the U. S in my previous argument. Further, You were supposed to argue that the money for the border wall is well spent or should be spent, You were not supposed to enhance my argument.
The boarder wall is a waste of money

I hope we will have an exciting debate and maybe I will get my mind changed on this topic. The first point that I would like to make is that the border wall will not stop illegal migration. The statistics show that about 40% of undocumented immigrants arrive here by plane, And that is a conservative estimate. Moreover, The boarder wall still wouldn't stop the other 50-60% of illegal immigrants. This is because of the "circular flow" this states that people would come to the United States, Work for a while and then leave. But when the Clinton and Bush administration increased the border security, The stats showed that illegals decided to get to America and then stay here due to the fact that it would get harder to go back out. So this made it harder for undocumented immigrants to leave the USA.
In a world without negative emotions, there will be no positive emotions

Thank you crackofdawn for your well-thought out response. My opponent started by outlining two possible situations in which my argument works. I agree that situation "a" is illogical. I disagree that situation "b" is illogical. Situation "b" is that humans can feel no negative emotions. Going with the example that a man wins $1,000,000. In this situation, humans can feel no negative emotions, so the other lotto players and the owners of the lotto cannot feel negative emotions. They would have to feel normal which is a little bit happiness. My opponent thus contradicts himself. The next argument of my opponent is that situation "b" is on an impossible premise. But this entire debate is based on an impossible world. So, situation "b" still stands. The second part of the second part of my opponent's argument on why situation "b" is illogical, is about human nature. But, if it is as my opponent says, then a world with no negative emotions cannot be sustained, it cannot exist by opponent's case. In other terms, if the level that is normal changes than in a world without negative emotions, the normal level will rise to mid-level of happiness. Then, anything worse becomes negative. More contradiction in my opponent's case. My opponent must prove that a world without negative emotions can never have positive emotions, but he contradicts himself twice, and presents illogical arguments.
In a world without negative emotions, there will be no positive emotions

Thank you crackofdawn of starting this debate. My opponent argues that without any negative emotions, positive emotions become neutral. So happiness then becomes normal. And, without feeling sorrow, you cannot understand happiness. My opponent fails to realize there are degrees of happiness. Yes, happiness would become normal, but that is if there is only one level of happiness. A person would be moderately happy if they got an A on a test. A person would be unbelievably happy if they won $1,000,000. If the moderate happiness is the norm, then the unbelievable happiness is is a positive emotion, by my opponent's definition of "makes you 'feel' better than normal. " Happiness is defined as good fortune. Even in a world with no negative emotions, good fortune would be better than the norm; so, there is happiness. Therefore, it is not necessary for the existence of depression, anger, and sadness for happiness to exist. All definitions courtesy of dictionary. com.
In a world without negative emotions, there will be no positive emotions

This is a philosophical debate. My argument is that if nobody in the world was ever sad, angry, annoyed, etc. there could be no happiness. As far as I see it you can't have positive without these negative emotions. If you were permamently happy then you wouldn't be happy. You would just be normal. In this debate the phrase "positive emotions" should be defined as an emotion that makes you "feel" better than normal. Thus, if you were always happy you wouldn't be happy. You would just feel "normal. " It's only by experiencing things such as sadness, depression, and anger that you can truly understand what it means to be happy. Without those emotions you wouldn't feel any different than usual and wouldn't "feel" anything. This means that with the balance of good and bad neither can exist without the other. I will explain into further detail in the next round.
Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school.

i had my first gym class in kindergarten. And I had my first health class in seventh grade. Giving kids a class in nutrition does not mean that they're going to listen or apply it to real life. Disease can be spread through a number of ways. Lets be real if you were given a nutrition class would you use it? i might listen but it doesnt mean I would actually go out and do what I was tought.
Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school.

Gym class and health class, gonovice when was your first gym class and when was your first health class? what grade?. Second how much about nutrition did you learn from your gym or health class. How much do you currently know about nutrtion? How would you rate your nutrition knowledge from 1 to 10, what number. And to see if the gym class and health are realy enough to teach about nutrition how has the knowledge that was taught to you in those classes effected your daily life. For instance if you would could you give a sample of your current diet for a one day. Just try to pick the things you eat most often on most days, through out the day. Maybe I am wrong, maybe school are already teaching enough about health and nutrition, though the more the 60% of the countries obesity rate do not say much, nore does the epidemic of heart disease,diabetes, and cancer deaths. It is said the in a few years from now corornary heart disease will surpass cigarette smoking as the most preventable cause of death.
Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school.

Italia, its called a gym class! and health class! almost every school has one. In my high school we spend a large amount of time learning about how to prevent diseases. We also learn how to be wise about what medicines we decide to take. I have a lot of common sense and most americans do. so if some company decides not to give information about the topic or things along that line i'm going to do my research before i put something into my body that may not help. And all those companies who dont spend any time on the information on the disease or those sorts of things shouldnt your doctor be the one to give you the information. For you to say that they dont give enough information that may be true but people also should get the important information from their doctors. you know the ones who diagnose them in the first place. also lets please keep this debate knowledgeable and factual for the sake of the debate.
Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school.

people should know how to take care of their body so they can prevent the majority of diseases and cancers and get off of the dependency of pharmoseutical companies or cold hearted pill pushers which ever name you prefer. Maybe not all but my overall view of pharmosuetical companies is pretty negative because they choose not to spend any money on commercials or info on prevention. they have the knowledge and power yet choose to take advantage of people and thier money.
Human intelligence is soon going to be replaced by artificial intelligence

As we advance computing technology, specifically artificial intelligence (AI), we will eventually reach a point where AI is advanced enough to advance it self with out our aid. It will be able to evaluate it self and attempt to make improvements. Once this happens, it will be unstoppable except by brute force. When an AI reaches self awareness it will be able to make thousands of years of intellectual advancement, by human terms, in a week. Once this happens human intelligence (HI) will be obsolete and incapable of adding anything of value to AI for the same reason that chimpanzee intelligence is ill equipped to add anything to our intelligence. We can learn from studying them, but they cannot teach us anything; their intelligence is obsolete. They don't have knowledge that we don't have. Why do I know this will happen? Because humans now know that it is possible for us to create an AI. So a particular person who is capable of creating it has to decide whether he will or not. That person, or the next person, will ultimately decide that if AI isn't created by him, some one else will create it. Saying AI won't be made is like saying, "if nuclear bombs weren't invented by those who did, then they would never have been invented." I don't see this as being likely. Replacement - AI is an awesome power that humans basically need, but at the same time it has a very good chance of being the source of our destruction. Even if you program a computer to place absolute value on the persistence of human life, which would be very hard to do considering we haven't even figured out what justice is and how to enact it for our selves, it will still constantly improve itself at a rate of something like thousands of years per week. It's only a matter of time before it decides that we are either not needed, or actually detrimental or threatening to it's own existence. Go see Avengers: Age of Ultron for an example of this. Even if it doesn't destroy us, it will still out-last us. Barring some type of planetary catastrophe, a computer is not limited to any where near the amount of mortal contingencies that humans have. It has a much greater chance of simply out-lasting us. I don't know if the word "soon" was important to your contention, but it is a relative term and would need to be defined if you want me to defend it. Thanks for the debate!
Human intelligence is soon going to be replaced by artificial intelligence

How can we say that Human intelligence is soon going to be replaced by artificial intelligence? As technology advances, it is actually the work of human intelligence. When human intelligence has created the artificial intelligence, and is yet aspiring to create further advanced stuff- in a way, isn't human intelligence evolving and increasing? As technology is created by the human after all- it takes human intelligence to give it a more advanced shape. Human intelligence is evolving and increasing, thus artificial intelligence CANNOT REPLACE human intelligence.
Watch this 2 hour documentary and debate me. Abortion is used as a eugenics tool.

It is a real shame that you could not keep composure. I do not celebrate Thanksgiving, as I am English, but I am sure I will enjoy the season anyway. Secondly, you keep referring to the past- you even say that it "began as a eugenics movement" which means that a) I have convinced you that it is no longer a eugenics movement or b) You lack conviction within your own debate to the point that you are talking about the past, when it was a eugenics movement, as opposed to now, where it is not, but you can't argue that point because of the amount of evidence against it. I will thoroughly stay out of any future debates that you propose, especially if you use Islamic groups as evidence, considering that in Islam, it is the belief of Muslims that it is one's duty to have children under Allah's command, so obviously they will be opposed to abortion, it does not even back your argument that abortion is used as a eugenics tool, it simply (and wrongly) states that "abortion is black genocide" which it can't be anyway, considering that a genocide involves the forceful extermination of a race, not an optional one. Furthermore, research shows that black people in America are often poor, and so can't afford children: http://blackdemographics.com... at the bottom of the page, a table shows that black families earn around 30% less than the rest of America. You are simply reading too much into the subject without considering other factors. Debate concluded. Thank goodness.