BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetic screening/child selection

Con has left it to me to define the resolution. He is opposed to "it," but doesn't say specifically what "it" is, although he has made it clear that "it" has something to so do with genetic screening. The resolution is: "The law should allow genetic testing of unborn babies for the purpose of detecting genetic defects, and to subsequently apply such cures for detected genetic defects as may be available." Pro asked a series of questions to frame the debate. Pro's questions and my answers are as follows: "Should we allow geneticists to determine the fate of unborn babies?" No, the fate of unborn babies should be determined solely by parents. Geneticists should be restricted to providing information to parents, and to assisting in providing cures sought by parents. "Does being mentally handicapped make you incapable of living life to it's fullest and why is being mentally handicapped even an issue?" Yes, being mentally handicapped makes a person incapable of living life to the fullest. That follows directly from the definition of "handicapped": "something that hampers a person; disadvantage; hindrance." http://www.yourdictionary.com.... Whether or not a handicap is so severe as to greatly impair ordinary living and enjoyment of life is a separate question. For unborn babies, that decision should rest with the parents and should be based upon the best information available. "why is being mentally handicapped even an issue?" A very severely mentally handicapped person may impose a substantial burden upon parents, siblings, and society. Therefore it is an issue. "Does genetic screening take away from "natural" selection, ..." Follow-up actions by the parents may take away from natural selection. For example, applying a genetic cure prior to birth may be prevent the death of the child early in life. For example, there is a genetic heart defect that might be cured http://www.sciencedaily.com... All of modern medicine takes away from natural selection. Death of the mother during child birth, for example, is natural, as is death of children in early life. Society has been working hard for a long time to subvert natural selection by providing human-caused cures to natural problems. this is a good thing and should be encouraged. "... and are we on the verge of "designer babies"? ..." I think "designer babies" generally refers to choosing secondary genetic characteristics like hair color. We are currently not on the verge of that because the technology is not available and society does not allow it. I suspect that in the long run society will allow some parental choices and not others. However, with respect to curing genetic defects, the only argument against it appears to be that it is "not natural" -- and that argument fails because it applies to all of modern medicine, and society accepts "unnatural" cures. The resolution is affirmed.
Genetic screening/child selection

Should we allow geneticists to determine the fate of unborn babies? Does being mentally handicapped make you incapable of living life to it's fullest and why is being mentally handicapped even an issue? Does genetic screening take away from "natural" selection, and are we on the verge of "designer babies"? Need info, and lots of input- If you are in favor of it I want specific reasons and "peer reviewed" links, not just wikipedia sources.
Jesus was NOT the Messiah

I feel that I made many mistakes in this debate. One of those mistakes is that I did not share the BoP--BIG MISTAKE. Another big mistake is, I'll admit, to being ignorant to some of the texts. I greatly appologiese to my opponent for poor quality responses. I want to focus on more serious debates and get a better understanding of the texts. I'll man up and admit that I was wrong. Therefore, I resign this debate. RA, you have always been such a challenge to me. You have given me a headache at times and gave me so many things to think about. Thank you. I resign. ALL SEVEN POINTS GO TO CON!
Jesus was NOT the Messiah

Resolution: Pro will argue that Jeus was not and cannot be Messiah. I will be using Jewish sources, OT scripture and logic. Please no semantics. Round 1 is acceptance only Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: First rebuttals Round 4: Second rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements, no new arguments Burden of Proof: I, pro, have the entire BOP in this debate. It is my BOP to show Jesus was not Messiah. Therefore; any argument for Jesus' messianic heritage is invalid. Thank you to whoever accepts this challenge. My opponent MUST be a Christian.
God is a logical concept

I would like to debate you about Christianity. God is a logical concept; the Christian God never (and has never) changed. The Trinity is a perfect explanation for how the universe began. I will argue for religion (Christianity) and the science within it (Creationism). Con will attempt to show how the concept of God is not logical. In this debate we will only argue about the Christian God--also known as Christ--and this means that 'God' is a Trinity. The Trinity (3 in 1) is God the Father, Jesus the Savior, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost. I believe in God. I believe he created the world and the entire universe, and my opponent will attempt to refute my reasons for why Creator God/the Christian Trinity is a logical concept. Definitions: Logic = http://dictionary.reference.com... Christianity = http://www.merriam-webster.com... God = http://www.religionfacts.com.... 1st round acceptance. 2nd, 3rd round arguments/rebuttals 4th Round rebuttals and conclusion only (no new arguments) Good luck! LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!!
The Judeo/Christian god must be the one true god

Let's have a good old fashioned debate. It's been a while.By accepting the debate you must agree to follow the format or else forfeit:R1: Acceptance R2: ArgumentsR3-R5: Rebuttals The argument is just as it says. According to evidences - the God of the bible must be the one true god. I'm against that notion (there is no true god), Pro will be for it. Thanks!
Twilight Is A Terrible Book/Movie Series

The people that like it aren't excessively intelligent; in fact statistics show that it's quite the opposite. Personal experience can also attest to that matter, as a lot of acquaintances of mine that were into Twilight had unbelievably bad taste in music, movies and books. It is teen trash because it has nothing to teach; it is simply a marketing statement, a way for the producers to make money. Love triangles aren't exactly moral, just so you know. What is the aim of this movie? Is the director trying to communicate something to us, to transmit an actual message? It's most definitely no "Citizen Kane", I'll give you that. I have forced myself to get to the end of the movie and my stomach began to twist and turn at the sheer idiocy of this commercial junk. If it is not a story of love, then what is it? They certainly don't respect the imposing status of vampires; in fact, the movie makes them look like a bunch of sparkling fairies. This movie was made to make money. Nothing else
Twilight Is A Terrible Book/Movie Series

My opponent argues: "Just because it was adapted in five major motion pictures doesn't mean that it's amazing, it just goes to show that a lot of people like it" First, I didn't argue that it was amazing. I argued that it wasn't terrible. Second, if a lot of people like it, than it can't be excessively bad. "Con also suggested that this book doesn't even have an actual purpose in her last argument, which I find surprising. I'm assuming that you're placing "Twilight" in the following category: "Most teen vampire or paranormal books are hardly about real, true love"." The word "most" here was an exclusive "most." This was made clear when I explained that Twilight teaches morals. "As for teaching healthy values, I must dissent. This horrible series is but teen trash turned successful." I would like to point out that my opponent does not explain either why he disagrees or give proof as to why Twilight is "but teen trash turned successful." SOURCES: http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Twilight Is A Terrible Book/Movie Series

I have obviously intended to use second definition of terrible and I'm pretty sure Con could have pulled it out of the initial context as I've also implied that it's bad. Just because it was adapted in five major motion pictures doesn't mean that it's amazing, it just goes to show that a lot of people like it for its shallow lovey-dovey background and that it has been a financial success. There are however a lot of fantastic movies that haven't received as much attention because they don't appeal to the most important age group nowadays: teenage girls. Examples of the latter: Taxi Driver, Mean Streets , Waking Life, etc. Con also suggested that this book doesn't even have an actual purpose in her last argument, which I find surprising. I'm assuming that you're placing "Twilight" in the following category: "Most teen vampire or paranormal books are hardly about real, true love". As for teaching healthy values, I must dissent. This horrible series is but teen trash turned successful.
Twilight Is A Terrible Book/Movie Series

DEFINITIONS: Twilight Series: A series of four vampire-themed fantasy romance novels by American author Stephanie Meyer. Terrible: [1] exciting terror, awe or great fear [2] extremely bad; horrible ARGUMENTS: 1) Using definition 1, I think it is safe to say that my opponents conclusion is false. I am yet to meet someone who was terrified of this series. It is full of romance and humor and is not famous for exciting any terror. 2) Using definition 2, I must use a different argument. My opponent argues that the Twilight series is a terrible series, meaning it is extremely bad, or horrible. If this series is so terrible, than it would hardly have been made into five major motion pictures that are adored by fans around the world. 3) Most teen vampire or paranormal books are hardly about real, true love. I would like you to note that Bella expressed repeatedly the desire to have sex with Edward. Edward, however, refused. This series teaches teens healthy morals
Twilight Is A Terrible Book/Movie Series

"The people that like it aren't excessively intelligent; in fact statistics show that it's quite the opposite. Personal experience can also attest to that matter, as a lot of acquaintances of mine that were into Twilight had unbelievably bad taste in music, movies and books." My opponent gives no evidence to support any of these matters. Also, one cannot judge whether or not someone's taste in music, movies or books is good or bad. It's their decision. Someone else might think that your taste in those things is disgusting. "It is teen trash because it has nothing to teach" On the contrary, this series is full of lessons. The book "Twilight and Philosophy" delves deep into these lessons. I personally have read this book (written by college professors) and it is full of interesting ideas about the series. My opponent states that he himself has never actually read the books, and has only sat through one movie. How can he fairly judge, then, the quality of any of these books? SOURCES: http://andphilosophy.com...
cause and effect is logic

poison is in contrast with the one getting poisoned, if an alien only lives from drinking battery acid, is it then illogical for me to feed it battery acid it to help it get healthy? is battery acid healthy? is poison healthy? if you have a bear fur you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear fur i know it comes from a bear the law of contradiction proves itself.. how could everything not be everything, or, why do we have different words if they all mean black? cause and effect is not relevant to detect or define the law of non contradiction, but logic is absolute as well
cause and effect is logic

When someone says poison is unhealthy, what they mean is that poison has the property of being able to diminish health when imbibed. Poison is not necessarily unhealthy. For example, if I lack the enzymes to convert a prodrug that's active metabolite is poisonous, then the poison is not, in fact, something that can cause me to have a diminishing of my health. If I have an excess or a highly active form of the enzyme that metabolizes a poison to an inactive form it may also not be deleterious to my health. I think the logic you wanted was as follows: In general, imbibing poisons can cause you to become unhealthy. Becoming unhealthy is not desirable. You should avoid that which is not desirable. Therefore you should avoid imbibing poisons. Bear fur is not, itself, a bear much like my pubic hair is not, itself, a human. Cause and effect is not equivalent to logic. Inductive logic can derive information about causality, but it is not the case that this means that cause and effect is equivalent with logic. How, for example, can cause and effect be used to derive the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity?
cause and effect is logic

You are claiming that logic and "cause and effect" are identical, not that "cause and effect" can be used for propositions in deductive logic. This is an absurd statement as I demonstrated by showing that "cause and effect" is irrelevant to the logical absolutes like noncontradiction and identity. The burden is on you to demonstrate that all logic is identical with cause and effect because that is a claim that you made. As to your examples, I refuted every example you offered and you have yet to offer any counter to my refutations. I will not offer anything else until you can offer a coherent refutation of my refutation of the incorrect points you made such as "poison=unhealthy". Until you post something worth responding to, I will be posting pass for further rounds because I already defeated everything you have posted and you keep reposting it in slightly different forms.
cause and effect is logic

you are con so you show me why, i have shown you 2 examples that are true and you have every cause and effect relation that exist at hand to disprove it, con i have demonstrated it.. any true cause and effect relation is sufficient to define logic so because it would be unhealthy to eat the sandwich when i am wounded becasue whatever, is it then logical to do it? why or why not you dont necessarily get poisoned from drinking poison, but in that case it might not be poisonos, so poison is also in contrast with quantity are apples poisonous? food is healthy.. lol, how do you stay healthy without food, salat is food the bear fur is still a dead bear even thou the bear is alive
cause and effect is logic

You are meant to be arguing that cause and effect is identical with logic. Nothing you have said so far demonstrates or even implies that. It might be illogical to feed the alien battery acid. For example, we live by eating food, but if you are bleeding out from a gunshot wound, it would be illogical for a doctor to feed you a sandwich at that moment. Again, battery acid and poison are not healthy or unhealthy in that they are not identical with those categories. Drinking poison can cause you to be unhealthy. Healthy is a descriptor of the health status of a person. When we call things like salads healthy, we are playing fast and loose with language. Salads are foods that, when part of a diet, can assist one in becoming healthy, but the salad itself is not healthy. Obtaining bear fur does not require the death of the bear. We can remove fur without killing an animal. If by fur you mean the fur plus the skin, we can still remove some of it without killing the animal.
Death Penalty

My opponent has opted NOT to address my case by any means and simply claim that the death penalty would be a problem financially. First, I'd like to point out that humans lives trump the value of a dollar any day of the week. As I've pointed out in the first round, innocents are placed at jeopardy due to the faultiness of our legal system. Second, I'm just going to disprove my opponent's position entirely through pointing some facts which indicate that taxpayers lose MORE out of their pocket with the death penalty being upheld. The following has been taken from this debate: http://www.debate.org... " Financial Factors: a) The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state's executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005) b) In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003). c) In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and reduced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002). d) The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993). e) Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000). f) In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)." -studentatheletechristian Every ounce of information here can be found in this source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... And there you have it. It turns out that it actually costs MORE to utilize the death penalty system. Whereas it is a pity that my opponent couldn't have actually debated against me in this debate, it matters little. Given that he has dropped my previous argument and given that I have refuted his position entirely, it is only reasonable to vote CON. Cheerio. :D
Death Penalty

"ahem!" Now, one of the reasons that the death penalty should be legal everywhere is because it is better than the alternative. Lots of criminals locked up and eating taxpayer's money is a VERY big problem. Also, If we just decide to lock people up, we will need more prisons- another chunk out of the taxpayer's pocket. All of this leads to the criminals, with so much that they do not deserve, even if they claim that they have changed, and lots of innocents that are left with lower amounts of money because the government has to raise taxes. So, you could say that they offend twice: once from their victims, and once from the taxpayer.
Death Penalty

I'm presuming that this debate is intended for me to argue AGAINST the death penalty. Thus, without further ado, let us begin. ================================================================== CONTENTION 1: The legal system isn't perfect, hence innocents being declared guilty is highly feasible | ================================================================== One of the main problems with capital punishment is that there have in the past been quite a few people who have been executed only for it to have turned out that these individuals were innocent of the crimes they were accused of all along. The reasons these individuals get declared guilty in the first place is often because they often are unable to financially afford a defense attorney adequate enough to prove their innocence or that the prosecution may simply be too skilled at his/her job for the defense to overcome (the fact that these prosecutors are often encouraged to be performance rather than finding the truth doesn't help the matter) (1). Without capital punishment, innocents who were declared guilty could at very least have the opportunity for additional evidence to be acquired long after initial trial had passed so that their case could be appealed and so that the state could make amends with the individuals they wrongfully declared guilty; the state wouldn't have blood on its hands I do have an additional argument, but would first like to know if my opponent has any evidence of the notion that the death penalty is an effective criminal deterrent. And we'll leave it at that for now. Sources: 1) http://www.bu.edu...
god dosnt exist

It really depends. Some people believe there is a god, mostly because they need that kind of comfort because they are going through a time of stress in their life. In fact many scientists believe in god, mostly because though they can explain a lot, they look more towards that there was a creator. But i see your point. Maybe you feel nothing, like no influence by a godly power, which true christians would call you a sinner. But most people believe in the science side. most don't believe because how can their be one god if there is so many faiths with so many gods?
abstain is criminal

I hope this can be a productive and civil debate. DefinitionsI trust that you will agree with the following definitions. Abstain : to choose not to do or have something: to choose not to vote [1]Criminal : involving illegal activity : relating to crime: relating to laws that describe crimes rather than to laws about a person's rights [2]During the course of this debate, I will attempt to show that to abstain is not criminal. I will also attempt to show that to abstain will not take down the entire country. Since you have not really given any arguments, only stated your opinion, I will end my round here.
abstain is criminal

everyone in this world especially democratic county using election system to choose their leader. and of course, everything must be have a bad thing such as abstain. abstain is an action that done by the elector which they don't use their right to choose and it will give bad effects for the country. so, im as the pros side i have to say that abstain is criminal 'cause it can make not only one but also a country go down because of abstain
High school cheerleader's are turning wide receivers gay

Nurture or nature that is the question. Are people born gay or do they become gay? Notwithstanding current Western social pressure, I think it fair to say that the jury is actually still out on this issue. Why would a bunch of studs want to dog-pile a wide receiver? This would suggest that the whole team was gay. I would suggest that you're simply misinterpreting traditional football antics and comradery. I would also suggest that you have a somewhat misguided opinion of cheerleaders, maybe as a result of childhood trauma. Perhaps you had five older sisters who would dress you up in skimpy cheerleading outfits and force you to play naughty cheerleading games. Do you still have a penchant for women's lingerie? Mouldy caramelized onions and vinegar is a very specific and unusual smell combination. I can only suggest that this is something hidden deep within your conscious mind, perhaps the result of childhood trauma. Maybe you were assaulted by the weird bachelor guy next door and he still had pans on the stove from when he had been making chutney the previous day. He had probably been working a night shift and hadn't had time to wash up. Do you have an aversion to pickles? Did he also make jam? I feel it necessary to make it clear that I do not live underneath a bridge in Scandinavia. Thanks and have fun debating.
High school cheerleader's are turning wide receivers gay

Surveys indicate that 8 out of 10 cats widely claim they are fat and cheerful, whereas stinky cheese dealers in turn are proven to be gay receivers. Yes exactly, translatable arguments are trying. Agreement is everything though. It was good of you to say. Your actual capacity for intellect, I believe could never be the same as Wills however. Still, you took my stand. Thank you.