BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gene Therapy 2

I know that it costs money, I realize that, and it's not the only option. You can either deal with it, or you can amputate a part of the body that is affected by your disease. Both solutions don't cost as much money, unless of course, you do absolutely nothing to help yourself and you end up in the hospital for a longer time, your symptoms getting worse, more medical bills, more money. I also understand that it can cause disease in the family, but gene therapy can be used to reverse the disease. Even if you didn't successfully get the implant, at least you had the guts to try, to turn your life around for the better. My opponent states the she believes it should be illegal, not even letting the people who want to try it to make them better. So they wouldn't have a chance to live a life they've only dreamed about. You stated that it's dangerous and if it's suppose to heal you why can it kill you? Every medicine out there has no guarantee that it will work and that it will heal you. Some people are allergic to medicines, that could kill them. Even prescription medicines can kill you if you don't pay attention to the amount you're suppose to take or if again, you're allergic. So are you against all treatments that could kill you? Because unfortunately, any type of medicine/treatment can so no one would ever be healthy again. Do you really believe that they should have to live the rest of their lives with this disease. The people used this method because they were desperate, they want to get better and you're not even going to let them try?
Gene Therapy 2

Gene Therapy affects human health and the economic world. It affects the human health because it can fail in replacing the gene that needs to be replaced. During Gene Therapy they put a virus in someone and hopefully it will go to where it needs to and not back fire. But in some cases the virus can mutate in the human into something even worse that it started out as. If a germ gene was put into a person then it would affect their genes and that persons blood line forever. It could make someone's family line develop different problems. Why do you think it is okay to do that? It affects the world(or economics) because it is only offered to the more wealthier people. If a person is in poverty or close to it but they need gene therapy done, then they cant pay for it. Its a rich solution, not made for the poor to get help. By using gene therapy you could be at risk of getting leukaemia. Do you want people to risk their lives and possibly spend MORE money on chemotherapy? And after getting gene therapy -for the people who survived- could get the idea in their head about designer babies. Because Gene Therapy and making Designer Babies is basically the same thing right? except the designer baby is made before its born. Many people have ethical issues with gene therapy because they say its wrong and unnatural to mess with someone's genes. They are worried that it will mess up the natural makeup of the human being.
Gene Therapy 2

I think that people who are the patient or a guardian of the patient should do some research. The doctor will tell you some of the basics including the risks of the injection. If people are so worried about what is going to happen, then look it up! Get the facts you need to make your decision. The doctor's opinion is just a recommendation, you don't HAVE to get the injection, they just recommend it to you. It's not the doctors fault if it doesn't work, you should've known the risks and if it was likely to work or not. You can also ask the doctor questions about it instead of just jumping into it. It can help you, it may not, but it's not the doctors responsibility to give you every detail, you need to ask. Almost 70% of the time gene therapy works according to http://www.uvm.edu...... The benefits of searching the topic is that you get a whole bunch of information that could help you make your decision and decide what would be best for you. It could be a whole new life for you but as you know, not everything was an 100% chance of working. You can definitely learn more and all that you learn is more beneficial to you and you can ask more in depth questions.
Gene Therapy 2

Jesse Gelsinger died in 1999 at age 18 because of Gene Therapy. Jolee Mohr died in 2007 at age 36 because of Gene Therapy. In Gene Therapy so many things could go wrong even though its supposed to heal you. Viruses are injected into your body and are supposed to go to the problem. but what if it goes wrong? what if it the virus doesn"t replace the problem, what if it attacks healthy cells and kills you or makes your situation even worse than it already is? My opponent is going to tell you why Gene Therapy should be allowed. Yes, if gene therapy or gene transfer works it could save lives and fix any physical problems. Its just very risky to have a experimental operation done with a virus. I strongly believe Gene Therapy should be illegal to have done in the US or anywhere in the world.
Gene Therapy 2

Gene therapy is a method of therapy that can get rid of diseases, whether it is a genetic disease or not, it can be taken care if with gene therapy. Majority of the time, gene therapy is used as a last resort for a lot of things but it takes much time. Gene therapy is when doctors inject a normal/non mutated gene and inject it into a virus, the doctors then implant it into you. The purpose of putting it into a virus is because the virus is supposed to carry the gene to the malfunctioning gene(s) and "swap" them. The virus destroys the gene(s) and then exits the body. I believe in gene therapy because it could be a chance for someone with an illness or even a syndrome to be able to live a normal life without medications or having to go to the doctors office every week. Most people would kill for a chance for this opportunity, I should know because I'm one of the people with a genetic disease. My disease is called Crohn's disease. This disease really messes with your digestive system. And the treatments are either poisonous IV's or feeding tubes where you aren't allowed to eat ANYTHING. I would do almost ANYTHING to have the chance to live a normal life. I understand that it's risky and there's no guarantee that it will work, but I'd rather die knowing that I tried to live a happy normal life then die living in misery.
Bio Genetically Engineered Humans Used For War

Salutations, I have enjoyed this debate. I am sorry that it was unable to be seen to the end, but I'm sure there is a reason for my opponent's absence. Since PRO's round 3 was forfeited, I have nothing to attack and my defense stands firm. Since this is the last round, I leave it up to the judges to decide who the victor is. Share and Enjoy. TwinDragon now stands down.
Bio Genetically Engineered Humans Used For War

Salutations KIP, If you simply legalize the process and make the program voluntary, you're still violating civil rights of the child. It seems to me that you're willing to place the child's life, rights, and safety into the hands of the government whose sole purpose is to turn that child into a weapon. You're following the footsteps of an abortion, where the parents have all rights over their child. However, unlike an abortion, the child has already been born. No one has any control over who their parents are or where they are born, thus your unlucky child is born into a life solely meant for war. That is highly unethical. A child does not possess the right frame of mind to decide if they want to be turned into a weapon for life. So instead of giving the child rights, you listen to the parents? What is their incentive? Is this whole operation tax deductable? "Now eat your peas Johnny or we will give you to the government!" I'm greatly disturbed by the implications of such actions for the sake of national security. You're destroying the quality of life of this child by turning them into nothing more than a weapon that walks upright. Where is this to lead? If the government finds out that this project is a high success but there are few people giving their children away, where are you going to turn next? A draft? Any child born this month is to be taken by the government for Genetic Alteration and Military Implementation. Or would the government just find it easier to farm for children? Have lots of pregnant mothers who had the misfortune to be walking home one day and was abducted for national security. Just because you legalize genetic alteration and make the project voluntary, does not justify taking away human rights, even if the human is merely a child. Legalizing child molestation and making it purely voluntary wouldn't justify that either. This endeavor undermines quality of life, national security, and is incapable of being justified. Making it legal is not justifying it. Pursuing genetic modifications for children for the sake of turning them into weapons is unethical. Your throwing out an individual's right to life if you turn them into a walking weapon.
Bio Genetically Engineered Humans Used For War

I think that i didn't specify my opening argument with enough specifics to properly base my argument on. of course if you bio genetically engineer humans, specific condition and requirements must be present. These conditions and requirements that would have to be present could be... - The child that is to be voluntarily given by the child's legal guardian(s) own will and desire and is to be informed on the bio engineering that could or will occur to the child. they would then have to sign a contract which forfeits the legal guardian(s) guardianship to that nations government. This should be done so it is not violating civil rights and respect for the citizens of that nation are upheld. - Another condition is that giving children to that nations government would have to be legalized. I would like to finish my second argument with saying that i don't state my whole argument on the events that occurred in the Halo series, only one specific event that a Bio Genetically Engineered Human had been made, and was used for war.
Bio Genetically Engineered Humans Used For War

Salutations, What your saying is that you support Genetically Engineered Humans to be used for war? And that if a country has the capabilities to do so, then they should make genetic modifications to humans legal for the sake of national security. I disagree and I find that such acts would only hinder national security. First off, I believe that it is unlikely that any country possess the ability to create genetically modified super soldiers in a safe and realistic manner. Modifying human genetics is unethical, especial if the only reason in doing so is to send them off to war. Also, what are they to do with the rest of their lives? Does the nation plan to solely use them for combat until they are KIA? The end is only justified if the means used are justified, and while assuring national security is a just goal, the means used (modified humans) is not justified. Second, this can only hinder national security. In any secure nation, the liberties, rights, and safety of that nation's citizens is of utmost importance. Respect for those individuals must be paramount if the nation is to continue and the nation will not be secure if it undermines individual liberties. Pursuing these unethical acts in the name of national security is hindering the respect for the citizen's rights in the first place. The nation has taken the quality of life of some citizen's and places it above the quality of life of others (the humans chosen to be modified). Finally, In halo, the Spartans were created to be super soldiers. But they were first mere children. The Spartan project abducted several children from their parents and replaces them with clones who had cancer, thus ensuring that no one would come looking for their children if they were believed to have died. This is highly unethical and undermines rights and liberties of the nation's citizens. In the course of the Spartan project, several "test subjects" died due to the extreme amount of genetic modification they had to endure. This undermines quality of life, national security, and is incapable of being justified. In the end, pursing genetic modification to humans to become nothing more than weapons themselves for the sake of national security is in fact deteriorating national security from the inside out. Respects for the citizen's rights are paramount and no nation can be secure if it undermines individual liberties, rights, and safety.
Kids Should Be Taught About Sex So they Can Understand And Consent Ten & Up

"What if someone rapes the kid and the kid knows nothing about sex? They will get hurt alot worse" Rape is obviously a bad thing, We all know that. But allowing a child to consent won't help the problem. If anything it will make the problem worse. A person's brain doesn't fully develop until the age of about 25. (University of Rochester) This shows that even an educated child can not make an educated decision in order to consent to sex. Even adults are making bad sexual decisions. There is no problem with teaching someone about sex and consent, But that person should not be able to consent at such a young age. Final point to make. Lowering the age of consent would expose the child to things such as Vaginal tearing, STIs, And other problems involved in sexual intercorse. Again, To protect our children from both physical, And mental harm. We should not allow children (Especially 10 years old) to be allowed to give consent to anyone.
Kids Should Be Taught About Sex So they Can Understand And Consent Ten & Up

See? Teach your kids about sex, Talk to them about it, This could be parent's only chance to teach their kids about sex, Teach them about it. They'll be smart and know how to use it in life threatening situations, What if someone rapes the kid and the kid knows nothing about sex? They will get hurt alot worse because of not knowing what to do to get the person to go away by giving them what they want, That's stupid if parent's won't teach the kids. Here's the source. Larson also said"sexual harassment only occurs because there are attractive females in the workplace when""it would be better if those girls got married no later than their early teens, So that they could spend their young womanhood in the marital home under the protection of their husbands. "https://www. Usatoday. Com/story/news/politics/2018/06/01/pedophile-white-supremacist-congressional-candidate/663215002/
Kids Should Be Taught About Sex So they Can Understand And Consent Ten & Up

"The age of consent is being lowered to ten" In what country is this happening? Do you have a source available? If not I understand but it seems highly unlikely. In my country, Australia, Children do not learn about sex until about the age of 12-13, And our age of consent is 16. That gives them enough time to learn and understand sex until they teach the official age of consent. If the age of consent was to be lowered to 10, At what age should they start learning about sex in order to fully understand it before they have the ability to consent? If the age of consent was to be changed to 10 years old, That would make them more likely to be exposed to sexually transmitted infections (STIs, Previously known as an STD) These laws were put in to protect children, This is supported by millions of people around the would. We can"t simply experiment with the health and safety of our children.
Kids Should Be Taught About Sex So they Can Understand And Consent Ten & Up

The reason for this argument is that kids should be taught everything they need to know and there are kids that do have the mind of adult and can have the mind of an adult and know the things that we know. Kids should be taught about sex, The age of consent is being lowered to ten, I have read all about it so prepare your little girls & boys for what is to come while you can. Please teach them.
Kids Should Be Taught About Sex So they Can Understand And Consent Ten & Up

So basically what you are trying to say is, Lower the age of consent to 10? There are a lot of people out there that know how wrong that is, And there are also a lot of people who would take advantage of it. There is a reason we lock people up who have sex with a person under the age of consent. It is because people at that age are reckless and uneducated about the situation. Even if you educate them, Adults will find a way to pressure them into doing anything. The adults will pressure them into things like avoiding contraception such as condoms. If the child was to get pregnant then what? The child would not be able to support the new born at such a young age between full time studies at school, Homework, Sporting events, Ect. This is why women take maternity leave in order to look after their new born child. The only thing related to sex you MIGHT be able to teach a young child would be puberty. Good luck in the next few rounds.
Kids Should Be Taught About Sex So they Can Understand And Consent Ten & Up

10 & Up Kids Should Be Taught About Sex So They Understand & Consent, So They Can Understand Adults And Know What Sex Is So They Can Be Sexually Active And Gain/Give Confidence So They Can Be Happy About Themselves And Feel Good About Themselves. If Kids Cannot Have The Ability To Consent Then Neither Should Adults Have The Ability To Consent, There Are Lots Of Kids That Would Like To Have Sex With Adults They Like & Have Crushes On, Also, I Would Like To Say That Saying Kids Can't Agree To Sex Is Like Saying Kids Can't Agree To Play Football, Adults Shouldn't Have The Ability To Consent If Kids Can't Consent, Kids Would Be Willing To Learn, You Start Knowing About Sex When You're Like Ten, Teach Your Kids About Sex So They Can Understand & Consent To Adults!
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Con's final rebuttal is mostly confusing gibberish. The only comprehensible parts are wild, unsupported declarations like "the universe has always existed" and "time doesn't actually exist, it is just a concept we invented. .. " While these have the potential to form legitimate rebuttals, Con did not explain, justify, or provide evidence for them. As such, they should be discarded. Con has not offered legitimate or justified rebuttals to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Argument stands.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Since the universe exists now there must have been something in the beginning. This could have been the universe itself. You completely ignored my explanation about the ball in the box. What you trying to prove exists anyways? They weren't created. As you put it "uncaused". This finite matter exists around us, if it exists then it does not need to be explained how it logically came to be. It just is alike what you are trying to prove exists with your attributes. There is a probability there was no beginning. Stop re-directing my questions. The infinite past of your described thing is also absurd. You just claim it is uncaused. Just like the universe could be. You have so far failed to prove it necessary for these attributes to be applied to your thing and not mine also/instead. It is not impossible for an infinite timeline to exist, it just wont ever end. Note a law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. That would make everything exist for an infinite time. "seems" And the big bang is the universe coming back together just to have another big bang happen. And what evidence? You have presented none of the evidence you speak of while talking about your scientist. What is the theorem? Ok, you are addressing my box now. But no evidence disproving it. I already broke down that argument earlier here. They are indeed arguments. Arguments that are arrows piercing your armor. Questions necessary to answer that when you have no proper explanation they break you down. I did, there could be away around having to be very powerful to create the big bang and create the universe. These examples are supposed to be helpful. Stop attacking the examples and attack what they mean. It can possibly be eternal. You have not presented the science and your logic has been broken down. The universe has always existed, as reasoned earlier. You have failed to demonstrate why the finite material cannot be uncaused just at your infinite immaterial. You need a clear difference. Your argument proving that there was nothing existed before the beginning of stuff have been destroyed. The universe didn't create itself, it was just there just as your immaterial. Plausible, but not certain. The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been destroyed. And time doesn't actually exist, it is just a concept we invented to explain things that have happened, are happening, and will happen. "Time" has always existed just as your immaterial. To address your link 1, it just hasn't collapsed yet. Why? Who know. But it hasn't. This is the best debate I have had so far. Thanks Pro for a good time.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

You have demonstrated your support of the claims. Let us continue. It is exactly like it if you consider only your round 1. I know what universe means. -_- If nothing existed then nothing should yet it does. You cannot assume there was nothing in the beginning. You find a ball in a box. You don't know how it got there but it is still there. You can try to add attributes to what put it there but it might have just rolled in without a biological action. So if the universe exists then how do you know it didn't always exist? You said there was nothing in the beginning. So not god? Contradiction. You assume it was a very powerful force or entity of some kind. This man is very strong. He moved this car up a hill. What if it was something simple and finite such as a tow truck? You don't have to be very powerful. What about the still undiscovered TOE? In all infinity there must be some explanation. What if the universe is uncaused? What if it just popped into existence some day? Why must there be a cause if you say there can be something uncaused? And what if immaterial didn't exist? We cannot assume nothing existed in the beginning since there is the universe now. How do we know there was even a before? And the reason I didn't rebuttal in round one was because you had zero support. I also put an introduction there. Good luck Pro.