BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

Con, you are being dishonest. I do NOT support animal cruelty and I have said that already many times. I think that HGH won't require surgeons as much as a single injection in the future. We would be able to mass produce that as well, or better, as we can mass produce anti viruses, etc. Historically ALL technology has become more available and cheaper as time goes by. Chemo therapy will beocme cheaper and more available in the future as well. Your arguments are nonsensical. You say that because Genetic engineering might be excluded from the lower classes at first, it is a bad idea to produce it? That is equal to saying that because Cancer therapy will be excluded from the lower classes at first, we shouldn't pursue it. It is a bad argument pure and simple. Most of the genetic problems that exist today are not problems that "we created". Aging, disease, death, all have always existed. Moreover, even if "we" are the problem then genetic engineering could be the solution to that as well since it could change who "we" are inherently. Did the native Americans or Mesopotamians treat animals better than we do today? Of course not. Native Americans ate Dogs, horses, etc. commonly. And in no culture in the past did they ever have all of the laws protecting animals that we have today. How many animal rights laws did Mesopotamians have? I argue that higher intelligence would equal better treatment of animals. I argue this because most of the animal abuse that we see today is done by uneducated ignorant people. Certainly, there are examples of scientists mistreating animals. However, on average, Scientists are very careful to reduce suffering when they do experiments on animals. I personally do not believe that animal testing should be done unless totally necessary. Also, with a higher I.Q. we could easily find ways to "produce" meat without even killing animals. It is all possible, we just can't do it yet.
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

It is pretty obvious from previous statements you at least support animal cruelty which is ok, I understand The thing about cars, computers, refrigerators, you can mass produce them. Can you train as many HGE surgeons as X-ray technicians in the next fifty years when we barely understand it right now? Logically lower class, non high school graduates can make cars, but not perform gene transplants. Which means that a whole new branch of schooling is going to be created just to support that. Chemo therapy can cost up to 30,000 dollars for just one session? Not many even lower upper class can afford that. Insurance wouldn't even cover it like it does for most things. Those ignorant people are the scientists. Please watch that video. http://www.youtube.com... Do you want that happening just so you can look better? Just so that we can solve the problems WE created? I really have no idea what you are talking about when you say "increased intelligence about animals." Native Americans or the first hieroglyphics were of animals. In ancient Mesopotamia they treated animals way better than we do now? Or the Native Americans doing ceremony's for all the animals they killed? Did they not understand animals? Have we just become more ignorant? In your last statement you said "that animals, beside us humans, have feelings and emotions." So that means animals are almost like us? Really I see no logic in "increasing our intelligence" will help us treat animals better. We will want more,build more, need more, kill more because we want to know how to make money! Vegetarians live approximately seven years longer than people on a vegetarian diet. So no we would find ways to make meat better for us and thus eat more animals.
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

I do NOT support elitism or animal cruelty. Any technology that comes up will come up through the basic process of capitalism. If you look at technologies in the past, all of them were exclusively for the rich. This, however, does not last long. Cars, Computers, Refrigerators, etc. We've all got them now, even the lower class for the most part. The same would be true of Genetic engineering. The technology would, over time, become available to EVERYONE. So I do not believe that the argument is relevant or valid. I understand and agree with you that animals, beside us humans, have feelings and emotions. That is not the issue here. The issue is that most animal cruelty is not the result of experiments from scientists but rather from ignorant people who abuse animals because they are to stupid to know any better. With increased intelligence, people will know about animals more and be empathetic towards them more. So, in the long run, it would greatly benefit animal kind. If you look at it another way, Humans could easily become vegetarians with genetic engineering. Removing any possible side effects from purely Vegetarian diets (if there are any) would result in even less animal cruelty.
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

So I just want to clarify that you do support elitists and animal cruelty, because the more you keep typing it is clarifying it more. "The upper class having exclusive rights to these technologies would last a few decades at most" From what that is saying the rich people of society will have a bigger advantage not through hard work, but through them having more money, and then their kids will have advantages over other kids, who's family are less wealthy than theirs. I live in a low middle class household and if kids in my class are becoming smarter because daddy is a doctor is that fair? If what you say is true about it trickling down to upper middle class people then this will thus create a bigger class gap and increase poverty.Just because some kids parents can afford for him to be smarter means he can out do his peers with an unfair advantage. I thought the roots of Capitalism is hard work. Not just if your parents are rich and will pay. This all just showing that you are like mentioned before are an elitist. It sounds like you do not support America either! Who am I debating? A elitist, animal hater, speciest, communist?! So from what you said I really can not see how you do not support animal cruelty? Its better off in the "long run" for animals? Do you Eccedustin not understand an animal?That they are an organism just like US.Non human animals experience sensations just like we do. They too are strong,intelligent, and evolutionary. They to are capable of adaptation, and can not adapt in a cage just so they can be experimented on because we are to ignorant to solve our problems that WE created. Not them. How will pain and suffering benefit animals? The more HGE develops the more tests need to be done. Proving that more animals will be needed thus proving that "in the long run" is not true and you support animal cruelty. It seems you are a typical speciest willing to hurt anything just so you can "look better" I will be waiting for your stuck up response
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

Apology, I should have, again, made the character count larger. At first, since as everything is economic, the rich people would be the first to try and use HGH (as they use HRT today more commonly). How would we know it works? We would know that it would work through scientific testing, lab testing, finally human testing. Etc. It would be a long process. Eventually everyone would be able to afford it as technology improves. The upper class having exclusive rights to these technologies would last a few decades at most. Perhaps less. I do not support cruelty to animals, but animal testing happens and it can prove very beneficial to humanity. Would I sacrifice some animals for humanity getting smarter and better off in the long run? Sure. Why? Because, the smarter we get the more we will understand animals and, in the long run, treat them better... Overpopulation is a problem today purely because we, as humans, aren't smart enough to control ourselves and our reproductive abilities. We can't manage ourselves. With increased intelligence, this would no longer be a problem. Science has proven that higher I.Q. and education leads to less children, and having children later. Would a child be picked on for being altered? I can't imagine how they would, since no one would even have to know. Moreover, in time, nearly everyone will have genetic alterations so it won't matter. I, for one, do not believe that we should refrain from using genetic therapy to cure depression, make people happy, make them live longer, healthier, etc. all because there is some chance some one might be made fun of somewhere. It seems nonsensical to me. I don't know why you are bringing cloning into the issue. I never mentioned cloning.
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

After my opening statement I will address a few of his asterisks one by one. From lack of characters I will only adrress three asterisks this time around. =============================================== HGE is the is the alteration of an individual's genotype and changing their phenotype to something different.When I look at what pro put down it seems like all of those things are amazing! Longer lives, no disease, everyone being smarter? This is amazing!I have to ask one question though.(If all of those things you said were true which I will argue against after this)Who would be receiving these treatments, and how would we know it would work? Logically, the bourgeoisie of our society would be the ones getting this.The prices for HGE are out of the roof and affordable prices for high middle class family's do not seem in sight for a century.So actually the people getting this would live longer, keep their corporatocracy's going longer, and have smarter,stronger, "better looking" kids to keep these going. This would thus further increase the elitist group of people.Also not trying to sound like a peta member all of this would be tested on animals.So I ask you Eccedustin.Do you support elitism, and cruelty to animals? If you do! Then I do not want to debate with you! Increased lifespan-If HGE did increase human lifespan why would us as a society want that? Thousands of people are brain dead and have you ever heard of this? http://en.wikipedia.org... Making humans happier-I know many kids who are made fun of for being gay,black, Mormon etc.So if I was a clone (or altered) I am certain I would be made fun of way more than anyone else.Also kids have trouble when they are adopted, and can not find their family.If I was a clone, and I didn't even have a family?I would have no real family and thus no reason to be happy. Better looking- hhttp://gorillasafariadventure.com... http://alpha-mag.blogspot.com... One is real......
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

My argument is that genetic engineering, and specifically human genetic engineering is a good thing. I believe that human genetic engineering (HGE) can benefit human kind in an endless number of ways including but not limited to : *Increased lifespan *Decreasing disease *Making humans happier *Making humans stronger *Making humans smarter *Making humans better looking (Yes, even this can be done and is good) I will let my opponent make the first actual argument and I will then, after my opponent has made their argument, go into much further detail on my own argument as well as addressing theirs. So, I leave it to any challenger to argue against my initial statements and my general argument. Con, I await your response. :)
Pro Sandra Bland

con says race is was a factor evident by the recording. but con cites no specific examples that would necessitate he actions were about race. if anything, i'd argue his actions were fury over being resisted, which has nothing to do with race. con's point about race being a problem generally in the area doesn't mean it was necessarily in that case. im sure racism is alive and well in a lot of places, but that doesn't mean every time an officer is abusive in those areas it's because of race.as obnoxious as the person was in response to the police, the same situation probabably just continued, would be the best guess. police may or may not have gone too far, but she was still responding obnoxiously. this could have agitated her to the point of deeath. con still hasn't shown specific reasons why we sould assume she was murdered. suicide, i'm going with the coroner on this one.
Pro Sandra Bland

The county of which Sandra Bland died in has a known history for being obviously racist towards those that aren't white. Race is in fact a factor as you can see by the recording. The police officer was entirely unprofessional with the way he handled the situation. Getting angry and physical towards someone that shows no sign of threat is absurd. Case workers are trailing evidence as fas as how she died. Again, she would not have killed herself for such a small offense. She could have also been mistreated to the point of wanting to kill herself. Studies have shown Waller County Jail had high intentions to treat black people less humanely than other inmates. http://jezebel.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Pro Sandra Bland

The police officer really had no right to physically drag Bland from her vehicle for such a small offense. She was irritated that she got pulled over, as anyone would be. Sandra Bland's death seems staged in my opinion due to the research I did on her background. She was a big activist in her nearby church and worked a lot towards equality. It doesn't make sense for a woman who argued back to a police officer to defend herself and then kill herself in jail for a minuscule offense.
Pro Sandra Bland

there is no evidence the altercation had anything to do with race. the officer was upset she was not complying with his requests. that would have happened to anyone, even if they are within their rights to not listen.there is no evidence she was murdered, all signs point to suicide. as the coroner indicated. she did seem a bit upbeat while talking to her friiends and family, but otherwise, she seemed erratic and all the indicators around her death scene point to suicide.
ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

first off my opponent claims that taking away access to even a small part of the right to bear arms is unlawful but if it is unlawful to take away handguns it is also unlawful to take away their access to nuclear weapons or rocket launchers. Secondly how does my opponent plan to take away criminals access to guns he hasn't said anything about his so called plan other than that it exists. thirdly he has ignored the fact that 323 people are shot every day by guns that would be 118218 just this year (source center for disease control and presentation) He has ignored the fact that private ownership means that cops can still stop shootings and robbers from stealing from your house fourthly he has cited a total of two of his facts which leads me to believe he is just throwing around numbers and hoping you ,the audience, will take it as fact. fifthly one of the audience members ,inspector, said that handguns would be easy to obtain illegally as may be true however this is just a step because if handguns are legal that means that more handguns will be put into the country legally meaning that people can steal these handguns simple making it easier to obtain them illegally. once we have banned handguns we can start making it harder for people to obtain them illegally but we should do this one step at a time.
ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Firstly, I would like to first start by refuting my opponent's responses. Firstly, handguns are the most successful weapon of defense according to criminologist brief 23, therefore, to use a knife would not do to help if a burglar were to say invade with a rifle. Also a rifle is required to be held with both hands, so any chance of actually capturing a robber would be mythical. I would also like to add that only 0.1 percent to of robbers were actually scared off with rifles, according to the violence policy center. My opponent said that we have access to rifles and shotguns therefore we are not violating the second amendment. But to take even one of the options for self defense our citizens have a right to is unlawful, according to the Supreme Court. It is logical to state that the Supreme Court is more reliable than my opponent. He also said that criminals have access to legal guns more than illegal guns, but my counterplan will also prohibit criminals from getting guns while still maintaining the liberties of the American citizens. This solves better for the value, which he failed to apply his arguments to and thus has conceited to my evaluation statements, which he dropped as well. Thank you, and this is why I have already won this debate.
ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

My opponent said that handguns are used in self defense but couldn't they also use knifes or rifles for self defense as well as martial art techniques like karate. My opponent also said that it would be unconstitutional to put bans on handguns "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the second amendment however I believe that the constitution is out of date and was meant to be modified based on what new technology and education comes out or would you rather keep the 3/5's compromise which was a part of the constitution allowing enslaved blacks to be considered 3/5's of a person when determining the number of representatives for a state. secondly during the time of the constitution two people could stand 50 feet from each other shooting all day and never hit because they were so inaccurate My mom worked for DC general hospital before the golf war and medics from great Britain one of our ally's during the war came to train for war because their were so many mass shootings Plus i believe it would not infringe our right to bear arms. infringe is defined as to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ) because we are still allowed to use rifles shotguns and any other weapon for that matter. My opponent also claims that my problem with handguns is that they are being obtained illegally while in reality what my argument was "82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN)." check the last word before the source and if you believe that I modified it check line 6 of my argument My opponent also claimed that enforcing a gun banned would decrease the death rate however we are the country with the loosest gun control laws and the country with the most mass shootings by 17 times the closest competitor ,Germany. According to some study's people that have handguns in their house are 3 times as likely to commit suicide because it is so easy to do.
ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

I believe that in the united states private ownership of handguns ought to be banned Handguns can be easily concealed therefore they can easily used for crimes 323 people are shot every day by civilians with guns(the center for disease control and preventation) and 82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN). Germany ,the country with the second most amount of mass shootings, has had three since 1997 while the united states has had 51 (source Ray Sanchez CNN)
Opponent picks topic.

Broke the rules again. " Should Obama be president." Not WORLDWIDE. "The topic has to be debatable worldwide.". "You have broke the rules too." Please explain. If it's this:3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal. , YOU failed to provide your arguments in my round. If it's this: Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team. Argument forfeitures also result in full 7-point forfeitures. And my second & third round, this covers it: Rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent (special conditions such as debate topic chosen by opponent can be included if opponent broke rules). Also, justified rule breakage (including forfeiture due to previous opponent forfeiture) does not count as rule breakage. My opponent has broken many rules already and has forfeited all points to me.If you want me to choose a topic, I'll choose no.5 (Schools should allow cellphones but they need to be turned to silent). Provide your arguments in the next round, I'll rebut it, provide my arguments and conclude, and you do the same in round 5. You are con, I'm pro.
Opponent picks topic.

You have broke the rules too. Here's ten different topics. 1. Should Obama be president. 2. Is animal testing right? 3. Should sports be stopped 4. Do schools don't do enough to stop bullying 5. Should schools allow cellphones 6. Should children who diss obey be sent to boot camp 7. Is death for murdering people wrong 8. Should kids be allowed to swear 9. Is home schooling bad 10. Is Michelle Obamas healthy school Food thing right? I await the pros decision
Opponent picks topic.

I have capitalized 'PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES. '. You definitely didn't. I told you to provide 10 topics. You didn't."Provide ten possible arguments for me to choose from." I told you not to assume I'm pro. You did."IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro" The only reason I have provided this is to prevent one-sided debate attempts, like your topic. This is about the tenth time this has happened. Maybe I should tick the 'only accept above elo' box, which would only let people with a certain amount of experience accept my challenge, and not tick the box when a resolution is provided. Even though I have not followed the rules for this round, this is a justified rule breakage and thus my opponent still loses all 7-points. ("Also, justified rule breakage (including forfeiture due to previous opponent forfeiture) does not count as rule breakage.")Any suggestions to make these rules more obvious are welcome. I have bolded 'Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team. Argument forfeitures also result in full 7-point forfeitures.' to make sure you read the rules. But since you broke them, you have forfeited all 7-points to me.