BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does will be ethical to artificialy be means of genetic engineering to increase human IQ

Hello I will be the contender :) I would like to start by saying as of now it is non-ethical due to the fact that there have been no long term experiments on subjects; testing if it will actually raise the IQ, what the long term pros/cons are, and how it might alter the thought process or the brains of human beings has not been worked out or observed. Long term experiments provide more insight into what the process might do to the individual during their lifetime. Exhibit A: Cigarettes, when they first came out, were sold under the thought that they were healthy and helped people, although they never tested the long term effects. Fast forward many years and now we know they cause numerous health issues and are dangerous. I used that example to show how something may seem good in the moment when not to much is known about it, but not observing what the long term effects are could lead to problems for the people who have had their minds genetically engineered. So as of now it is not ethical to start genetically engineering human minds due to the fact that not all the information is there to prove it will be good or bad for the individual.
My opponent is either publically or secretly a Muslim, and I can prove it!

I am here to prove, conclusively, that my opponent is a Muslim beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be my opponent's responsibility to prove he isn't a Muslim. My burden will be to prove that he is a Muslim, and that he possibly wasn't born in the United States either . . . (and secretly sympathizes with Muslims and Devil worshippers). Anyone brave enough to challenge me hit challenge button . . . I dare you. (I have made this debate 4 rounds long because of the anticipated debate intensity.)
Fun. is a good band

Tell me, how many Fun. songs do you even know? That's irrelevant. They are most popular when repeating the exact same garbage as everyone else, based shown by their most popular song. This shows they are just as bad as Zedd, 1D, Justin Bieber and all of them, if not worse. They don't sing? Wow, it sounds like multiple people, they must edit his voice a LOT. Again showing how they don't stand out in any significant way from their competition.
Fun. is a good band

Repetition What's important is that, in the end, they don't stand out from the rest of the bands. I know that Stay the Night is not by Fun., but I was showing how Fun.'s most popular, and arguably their objectively best, is no better than songs like Stay the Night. Unoriginal Style Nate's voice is great, but when combined with the other two's, it starts sounding really boy-bandish. I understand that Bastille sounds British, but I still have to disagree with you o the point that 1D does. 1D is clearly not from a heavy British accent singing place.
Fun. is a good band

Repetition No, those songs are so popular because they were released with an entire new studio album in 2012, they sounded great, and the band had been active for four years. And Stay the Night isn't even by Fun. Unoriginal Style Many people will say Nate's voice is amazing and unique. I agree. If you listened to more of Fun.'s songs, you would also agree. And American and British accents can sound different when singing. It depends on what part of the country you're from. Take the British band Bastille for example. By just hearing the singer's voice, you can automatically tell he's British.
Fun. is a good band

Repetition Yes, but We Are Young has about 230mil views, Some Nights has 93mil, and Carry On only has about 30mil. This shows that they are most popular when just repeating something over and over again, almost as constantly and annoyingly as songs like Stay The Night. Unoriginal Style Nate Ruess is really young for his age (in the same way one could say Peter Capaldi at 55 is younger than William Hartnell at 55), and there aren't really any differences in American and British accents while singing.
Fun. is a good band

Repetition That is quite literally Fun.'s only really repetitive song. Why should you judge the entire band because of one song being repetitive? Unoriginal Style Fun. and One Direction sound NOTHING alike. The lead singer of Fun. is a 32 year-old man from Iowa City, Iowa, who lived in Arizona for most of his life. Everyone in One Direction is a teenager from Britain (Except for Niall).
Fun. is a good band

Alright, I won't be a jerk and say something like "a band can't objectively good, it's a matter of opinion" because that's dumb. Now, I agree that all of your points are all positives to Fun., but I will outline my main reasons or disliking them. Repetition Let's look at one of Fun.'s most popular songs, We Are Young (http://www.azlyrics.com...). As you can see, it has 11 stanzas. Six of them are the exact same. SIX, that's an incredibly large amount for only eleven stanzas. When listening to a song, I don't know how many people are willing to listen to the same thing repeated over and over again like that, I sure don't. Unoriginal Style The first time I heard them, I honestly thought it was One Direction. If 1D did a cover of Some Nights, I'm willing to bet half the people that heard it would think it's the original. Again, this is the problem of hearing the same thing over and over again, which is incredibly annoying.
The 16th Amendment should be repealed

Fellow debate.org members, lend me your attention. My opponent has failed to address my round 1 arguments. That implies that all points I made in round 1 stand. My R1 points were that repealing the 16th would take effort and would cause harm to the system. We would have to go through the process of repealing it, and the process of making a whole new tax system. Also, the tax system would not be able to have the current functionality without the 16th amendment. My opponent has made no points, since he explicitly chose not to make arguments in round 1 and forfeited his chance to make any points in round 2. My opponent has NO arguments, I have SOME arguments, and these arguments work in my favor as far as this debate is concerned. Therefore, it is wise to vote CON on this debate. Also, note that my opponent neglected to include a period at the end of the single sentence he contributed to this debate, thus he does not deserve your vote on the issue of grammar. Thank you, and I am sorry this debate did not end up having more meaningful content.
The 16th Amendment should be repealed

The 16th Amendment to the US Constitution should not be repealed because it allows the Federal government to tax income in a much more meaningful way. Also, repealing the 16th Amendment would also be a lot of hassle, and with no good reason to repeal it, this makes it very much not worth it. So there are my opening reasons. Since my opponent made no opening arguments, these will suffice for now. Usefulness we derive from the 16th amendment is one reason not to repeal it, the hassle inherent in repealing it is another. I now await my opponent's argument.
Music Lyrics Censorship, Good or Bad

I agree, Music is a form of art. The part I disagree, is that your assumption that all coordinated noise is considered art and therefor is excluded by censorship. Please define at what point noise becomes music and as thus cannot be considered offensive to be heard by others. I.e. A howling monkey is not considered a beautiful singer, but do you consider their howls to be music? https://youtu.be...
Music Lyrics Censorship, Good or Bad

Nowhere i said noise is an art, I myself working in the music field know what it takes for a music to be produced and recorded, i believe some form of music have words which children should not listen, but what i also think is censoring and changing the words is not the actual solution, for example back in 1993 When Nirvana's In Utero album was released in, their song "Rape Me" was changed to "Waif Me" on the back cover of the CD when big-box stores Wal-Mart and K-Mart refused to sell it otherwise, so now that changes the meaning completely.
News channels have changed their subject material from serious news to celebrity "glamour" news.

I just want to say that this debate is not about how "stoooooopid" I am but the way news has changed over the past years. Last year, We realized for the first time, that they had done a celebrity piece. I understand the changing society, but it no reason to change your ways. As you have mentioned, there are shows like that, I.E. Jerry Springer, Maury and many others. There is no need to spread this into the mainstream news. This is from a website showing the kind of backing and news they were FOCUSING on in 2003: NBC Today Show Highlights WalkAmerica New York, NY, April 22, 2003--National March of Dimes WalkAmerica Sponsors Famous Footwear, CIGNA, GUMï¿½ brand of oral care products, Kmart, and Discovery Health lent their walkers to kickoff WalkAmerica 2003 on the New York City plaza of NBC The Today Show, the most-watched morning talk show with 6.4 million viewers. Nowadays, this is what they are presenting: Actress Kirsten Dunst has checked herself into Cirque Lodge, a source confirms to People. People on Get the skinny on Tara Reid! Jamie Lynn Spears' paternity dispute "American Idol" shockers and scandals Access Hollywood updated 10:52 a.m. PT, Thurs., Feb. 7, 2008 PARK CITY, Utah - Kirsten Dunst has checked into rehab, a source close to the actress has confirmed to People. Dunst, 25, has reportedly checked herself into the Cirque Lodge in Utah — the same facility Lindsay Lohan entered back in August. When contacted by Access Hollywood, a rep for the actress was not immediately available for comment. And This: Spears' friend Lutfi accused of drugging her Restraining order also says he took over star's home, finances and more A restraining order against Sam Lutfi, who has been at Britney Spears' side during her downward spiral, portrays him as a Svengali figure who held her a virtual hostage in her home, drugged her, took over her finances and controlled the ravenous paparazzi "like a general." There are even videos showcasing Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnanacy. This is a long way from: War in Iraq, War on Terrorism I suspect that the invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein will always be counted as the biggest story of 2003 (key: years ago). What are some of the ethical considerations in warfare? Is the so-called War on Terrorism like any other wars in American history? What is involved in such war and how far should people go in balancing civil liberties against safety and national security? Who are the Muslim extremists who are the primary targets of this war? this from about.com, previous stories from Todayshow.com people section. In conclusion, the times have changed. This is the only point I am trying to make. And no, i will not refute or argue that this debate is pointless. Thank you and I await my opponents rebuttal.
News channels have changed their subject material from serious news to celebrity "glamour" news.

Hello, Anonymous, and as always good luck. I will refute your summary: "Government controls media- Media controls people's knowledge and opinions- American citizens control nothing in this Democracy except for what channel your television is on." Government does not control all media,I have to say, because media is such a broad subject with such a wide scope. Here is the definiton of media, courtesy of Dictionary.com: one of the means or channels of general communication, information, or entertainment in society, as newspapers, radio, or television. This is not all controlled by government: look at blogs, websites, outlandish talk shows and the like. Media also does not control all of people's knowledge and opinions, as opinions are self-forming and people get their opinions and knowledge from everywhere, including books, websites, and other people. Media is not in control of everything. Also, you said "American citizens control nothing in this democracy except what channel your TV is on." Here is the Dictionary.com definition of democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Now, does that seem like a system wehre the people arent in control? You tell me. Now, I would like to clarify the point of thi debate: NEWS CHANNELS HAVE CHANGED THEIR SUBJECT MATTER. although we went a little off track, I seem to think that I have nicely presented the case that media has changed, and since my opponent has agreed and changed the subject of this debate, I urge you to vote pro. I leave you with a quote about democracy by H. L. Mencken: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Thank you.
News channels have changed their subject material from serious news to celebrity "glamour" news.

You are absolutely right, and that is why I rarely watch the news. They are just giving people a mix of what the people WANT tp see, and what the government thinks we SHOULD see. I find it funny that people see Jamie Lynn Spears (that's her name I think) and say "OMG how did this happen" well hello people we have Sex and the City, Real Sex 15, Quuer as folk, etc. and you are wondering why your daughter is a whore, then the media is reporting it all as if it should be a shock to us or something. People want to see other messed up people. They dont want to see the truth about our world. If middle to upper class Americans really knew the truth not only about the outside world, but of how our government treats many of it's own citizens then they might actually have to feel guilty for not doing anything about it. So to recap: Government controls media- Media controls people's knowledge and opinions- American citizens control nothing in this Democracy except for what channle your television is on.
there is no such thing as hell

i can at best believe in hell.. stories are not real, as i cant see, hear, touch the stories beyond the words being spoken or where ever you get the story from. belief is false, be lie, as i dont know is true, and i have no beliefs i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not, but i can believe there is a dog in my room that i cant see i can believe that i will go to hell, no matter what i do, no matter what religion i believe in, and the evidence to back up this belief is equal to any religious story i can believe about hell for me to claim, i will go to hell or heaven when i die, is not a true claim, but you claiming you are reading these words on a screen.. to you, is not an imaginary claim
there is no such thing as hell

I agree. The ideas and concepts of hell are not things; they are not hells. However, this does not demonstrate that there is not a thing out there which these ideas and concepts represent. The fact that you cannot hear, see, or touch hell does not demonstrate that it isn't a part of reality. It could be beyond your ability to sense. Humans can only see a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum [1]. Similarly, we can only hear a portion of the total range of frequencies [2]. The senses of touch, taste, smell, and balance are necessarily related to how close you are to an object, so they are irrelevant in the detection of a hell unless you are near to it. The bottom line is that your failure to sense a hell does not mean that a hell does not exist. As Pro, you claimed that, "there is no such thing as hell." You have not demonstrated that claim, and on more than one occasion, have tried to shift the burden to me. I had no burden to prove that a hell existed, only to show you that you could not claim that it doesn't. [1] http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
there is no such thing as hell

Hell is a concept; an idea. Whether or not that idea corresponds to an actual thing in reality is an open question. You are claiming that the idea does not map to reality; it is therefore your place to demonstrate that claim. Your persistent questioning for me to prove that a hell exists is a fallacy known as Shifting the Burden of Proof [1]. I have no burden, please stop trying to give me one and demonstrate your own. [1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Big bang theory

StructureR1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proof will be equally shared. I will argue that the Big Bang Theory is a solid scientifc theory that is a good explanation for the galaxies and solar systems of the universe.My opponent will argue against the Big Bang Theory. Big Bang Theory definition"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." [0]Round oneAcceptance and definitions only. All definitions will use common usage unless otherwise disputed and agreed upon.Round two argumentsEach person makes his/her case. Respond only indirectly.Round three rebuttalsRespond directly to your opponent's r2 arguments.Round four DefenseRespond directly to your opponent's r3 rebuttals. Source.0. http://www.space.com...
Big bang theory

R3 Rebuttals"Round two argumentsEach person makes his/her case. Respond only indirectly." Stupidape r1"Quote -Is the Big Bang Theory testable?Yes, it is,"For the tests, engineers built a giant contraption called the Large Hadron Collider.Pro states the LHC is built to test the Big Bang Theory, so...." toocoolblue r2My opponent has deviated from the round one setup structure. Creating a rebuttal in round two when he/she should have created an argument in round two and saved the rebuttal for round three. Thus I cannot rebuttal a non-existent argument, nor can I respond to my opponent's round two rebuttal without breaking the structure myself and becoming a hypocrite. Therefore, I pass round three. I plan to respond to my opponent's r2 rebuttal in the next round, round four defense.
Big bang theory

Quote - Is the Big Bang Theory testable? Yes, it is, "For the tests, engineers built a giant contraption called the Large Hadron Collider. Pro states the LHC is built to test the Big Bang Theory, so.... What does is mean when the Physicists who worked at the LHC wrote this? - The LHC "NIGHTMARE SCENARIO" has come true. DURING MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER, ALL I HAVE SEEN IS FAILURE. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science " it"s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we"ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. http://backreaction.blogspot.com... What does is mean when the the TOP Physicist who works at the LHC says this? - "It"s striking that we"ve thought about these things for 30 years and WE HAVE NOT MADE ONE CORRECT PREDICTION that they have seen," said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. https://www.quantamagazine.org... What does it mean when the Director of the top Physics Research Institute in the World, who was also the Chairman of the Math and Physics Department at Cambridge tells you the ALL THE THEORIES HAVE FAILED? https://vimeo.com... Everything that the state has ever taught us is wrong. Proven wrong. For decades, they shoved these absurd "THEORIES" down our throats because we lacked the technology to properly test them. Thankfully, that day has passed. But the people who built their careers on Imaginary Energy, Imaginary Matter, Non-Existent Parallel Universes, Non-Existent Alternate Dimensions, Selectrons, Photinos, Neutralinos, Tooth Fairies, Easter Bunnies and any other lie necessary to save their jobs are doing everything in their power to hide the truth. If you don't believe that..simply read my first post again....you might want to pay particular attention to the part about DISCOVERING THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!! That would be the most important scientific discovery in the history of the human race.... and yet nobody told you about it..hmmm
Big bang theory

Round two argumentsWe will stick to the original definition as opposed to my opponent's definitions in round one. Big Bang Theory definition"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." [0]"Is the Big Bang Theory observable? Yes, via red shift. "This shifting of wavelengths can be observed on a graph. This figure shows spectra of a star and of galaxies with typical redshifted spectral lines given by the equation: " [1]As you can see nearby stars are blue where far away stars are red.Additional observational evidence. "The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:The expansion of the universe Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right. The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts." [2]Is the Big Bang Theory testable?Yes, it is, "For the tests, engineers built a giant contraption called the Large Hadron Collider. The unit is designed to smash sub-atomic particles into each other at extremely high speeds. They hope to use the LHC to crash protons into each other and create events that are similar to those that supposedly occurred when the universe formed. " [3]We can test the heat of cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang should have been very hot and now cooled considerably and continues to cool. We can also test how far away galaxies are via redshift. Thanks for debating. Sources1. http://universeadventure.org...2. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...3. http://www.informationweek.com...
The Earth is round and you can't prove otherwise

Attention all flat Earthers! You are hereby invited to try and prove your stupid theory about the Earth being flat! Normal people can't accept! I wait to see how you try to prove something that's clearly impossible. I'm going to smash you to a pulp. I wonder if you can pull this off with good evidence and no flaws in logic. Oh, also, there's a neat website, where you confident weirdos can try and prove the flat Earth and if you can prove it to this guy, you win a million dollars. I'm not sure if it's a joke or not, but I think it might be a joke, but you might want to try and prove it to him if you're so confident about your junk. Just a fun little online activity. tinyurl.com/flatmillion Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, let's have a knock-down, drag-out, fight to the end and try to prove, once and for all, what shape the Earth is! Only flat-Earthers can accept! I await hearing your insane garbage!