BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Death bad? (redoing)

My premise is that Death is Not Bad and I would dispute your reasoning. While Nagel does state that death is the deprivation of life, he also further states that "It is often said that those who object to death have made the MISTAKE of trying to imagine what it is like to be dead". Therefore, since we cannot know what death is like, there is no rational way of knowing that it is inevitably bad. That is like saying you do not like something without trying it or tasting it. We have no knowledge, no experience, no research, no anything about death, so why is it that we can state that it is bad " we cannot. We do not know. So therefore, if death is what Nagel implies, and just the "deprivation of life", then life albeit which is inclusive of both good and bad experiences; painful and non-painful moments; happy and sad moments " then wouldn"t death be the deprivation of all those negative and positive reactions and feelings. Life is not all good, there are bad days, feelings, moments so therefore, death cannot be all bad, if bad at all, if it simply is the deprivation of life. If Death is simply the "loss of life" then this loss as stated in my counterparts arguments would yes be the loss of the following: Loss of one"s future; Loss of one"s pleasures; Loss of one"s values; However, it would ALSO BE THE LOSS OF THE FOLLOWING which is inclusive in one"s life; Loss of one"s suffering; Loss of one"s pain; Loss of one"s anxiety; Loss of one"s FEAR; So I ask, why then is Death Bad. In furtherance, there is no pain in death. Death and dying are two distinct separate entities in and of themselves. The pain, if indeed involved, would be in the process of dying, not in the final act of Death. So Death would then not be bad and would in actuality be the good that actually comes from the dying process if the person was in a painful course. SO in all actuality Death in that particular sense would be not only Good but welcomed as to prevent the person from enduring any more pain and suffering from the dying. In response to your scenario about asking someone if they would rather live longer or encounter death - I do not believe that is an accurate accounting to evaluate whether or not Death is Good or Bad since as human beings we are creatures of habit and apt to stick with what we know. Since we usually harbor within the Fear of the Unknown, and Death is the Ultimate Unknown and most humans cower from the unknown, all are likely to choose the familiar and common path " which in your scenario would be life.
Is Death bad? (redoing)

Redoing this argument due to an issue with the time limit. -- Due to an assignment, I as a student will do my best in order to support the claim that Death is bad. Whether or not I personally believe that to be the case is irrelevant. My premise is that "Death is bad". The reason I am supporting this argument is due to mainly two things. The first one have something to do with what Nagel stated about Death. For Nagel, he stated that Death is bad for it is a type of deprivation. We as a living-being experience many things in this world we know as life. The things we hold close to or as I like to refer as "attachments" are things that would cause anyone to view Death as an evil entity. Death in this cause would be "the loss of a life" and this loss would include but not limited to the following: loss of one's future loss of one's pleasures loss of one's value The second thing would be the suffering that comes with Death. The first case would be with the victim before he/she is dead. The second case would be with the victim's associates (friends, family, etc...), that would experience grief due to the victim's death. In order to further my point, if a unknown man came up to someone who is about to die or in the process of dying, and offer that someone with an additional five more years to life. That someone who is accustomed to live and only knows things through empirical and rational means would most likely pick to live five more years. Being that is the case, then they would have to view Death as something unfavorable. Supporting the concept that "Death is Bad".
gene therapy

but thats success with those individuals , not all individuals will have success in the procedure. once again money. you have liposomes and stem cells to look forward to if this is successful but there are also a handful of bad things like: Hemophilia , Blindness , Leukemia , Possible Tumor , Targeting Wrong Cells , Etc. This is also short lived so this isnt like a permanent life time thing , Your cells can be rearranged so this would not be a good outcome ..
gene therapy

The possibilities of gene therapy hold much promise. To date, however, that promise has not been realized. Clinical trials of gene therapy in people have shown some success in treating: Severe combined immune deficiency Hemophilia Blindness caused by retinitis pigmentosa Leukemia But the current way to receive gene therapy is by entering a clinical trial that well help the doctors and scientist see how sucessfull it is and the affects on the human body. But I would say knowing their is risk that its still possible
gene therapy

What if it doesn't work ? with current knowledge there is no guarantee that the vector carrying the healthy gene will end up in the specific place it is intended- there is a risk of causing even more damage to the genetic make- up that can result in severe consequences for the patient . there also is a huge risk of causing more damage if the healthy gene does not go to the right place severe consequences for the patient. the current knowledge we have about gene therapy isn't really knowledge since we don't know a lot about gene therapy its a theory not actually knowledge . if this happens to not work what will you do ? how are you going to explain this to the patient that just spent a sighnificiant amount of money ? how are you going to fix there problem?
gene therapy

Would you want to go into a procedure and not know what the outcome is or not know if its going to work or not. What's gene therapy you ask? Gene Therapy : experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease. This topic is important because people go to have this procedure done to correct their unhealthy genes but they could come out of the procedure with the same thing they went in with and time & money would be wasted. the risks of gene therapy gone wrong is : unwanted immune system reaction, targeting the wrong cells, infection caused by vines, possible tumors, the gene can not be easily inserted into the cell. Also the negative results or this are: severe combined immune deficiency , hemophilia , blindness caused by retinitis pigmentosa
gene therapy

Would you rather let your mind think in the future to solve future disease using different method or having the fear and holding yourself back. Well I introduce you gene therapy!! the new ways of curing genetic disorders cystic fibroises , parkinson"s disease, cancer. How gene therapy works? well in easy example they replace the bad DNA with good DNA. Well one of the good reasons of why I support gene therapy is because its a good technique for diseases that have not been researched yet and gene therapy can wipe out genetic diseases before they can begin and eliminate suffering for future generations. As also its the medicine for the future.
Bernie Sanders versus Rand Paul

I will be arguing that Rand Paul should be the next United States president instead of Bernie Sanders. I think that one of the best things about both of these people is that they are very close to third parties. Sanders in considered an Independent, and Rand Paul is pretty close to Libertarian. I think that our government under both Bush and Obama, has gotten a little too left or right. Here is where Rand Paul stands on some issues. - He is for budget cuts. He believes that the government in Washington spends much more than they should. Libertarians believe in limited government. That's where he is on this issue. - He believes that the government should intervene less on education. - He thinks that we should look for solutions to energy right here in America. We should stop spending money in other countries such as Iceland, that have effective alternate energy sources. -He is for military action when it is justified. - He is against Obamacare. - He fully supports legal immigrants who have come here and made a decent life for themselves. However, he is for more strict border security. Almost twelve million people are living in the United States illegally. Why should they be able to stay here illegally when other hard working people come here legally? - He is against gun control. Proposed gun control laws only restrict on responsible gun ownership. Criminals will still be able to obtain guns. - Paul thinks that our Tax Code needs to be reformed. - He is absolutely for helping our veterans. I agree with Paul on most, if not all of his stances. I think that if he helps enforce his opinions as a president, the country will thrive more a lot more than it has under Obama or Bush. Let me know some of Bernie Sanders's stances, as well as provide rebuttals. . http://mobile.nytimes.com... . http://www.paul.senate.gov...
Bernie Sanders versus Rand Paul

ResolutionWho should be the next president of the United States -- Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul? Framework Pro will argue that Bernie Sanders should be the next president, whilst Con will argue that Rand Paul should be the next president. Burdens Pro and Con will bear equal burdens of proof. Criterion The criterion, or the way in which "should" will apply in this debate, will be the betterment of society. For example, Pro will argue that society would be better off with Bernie Sanders as president than with Rand Paul as president. Con will argue that society would be better off with Rand Paul as presdent than with Bernie Sanders as president. Background Bernie Sanders: "American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. Before serving in the Senate, he represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States and served as mayor of Burlington, the largest city in Vermont. Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, and has praised Scandinavian-style socal democracy." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]Rand Paul: "the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party and the son of former U.S. Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas. He first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father, who was campaigning for the Republican Party's nomination for president. During his father's final term in the house, he was the first United States senator to have served simultaneously with a parent in the United States House of Represenatives." [2. http://tinyurl.com...]StructureRound 1 Pro will provide the rules, structure, and resolutionCon will offer his opening contentionsRound 2 Pro will offer his opening arguments and will have the chance to rebut Con will offer his first rebuttal Round 3 Pro will offer his first rebuttal Con will offer his final rebuttal and closing remarksRound 4 Pro will offer his final rebuttal and closing remarks Con will post "Pass" so that both debaters have an even number of rounds Rules1. The rules, stipulations, structure, etc. cannot be changed after the point of acceptance.2. Any deviation from the rules will merit a loss. This is particularly applicable to the rule that Con must pass Round 4 to even out the rounds. 3. Any forfeit will merit a loss. 4. Any definition not found in this opening piece will be taken from a reputable source -- e.g., Merriam Webster [3. http://tinyurl.com...]
Modern feminism is cancer.

First of all, I would like to state that my opponent has stated no basis for his wild claim. Feminism is not a bad thing here is why , feminism is just the way that women say that they can do things just as good as any man. So my opponent believes there should be no equality which would collapse modern society as we know it so he is bringing on the demise of equality which would make us go back in time and redo the very thing we tried to fix and who knows this could even bring about slavery because without the equality of women there goes the quality for black people. In conclusion, my opponent brings about the demise of the equality in the world.
Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

This is for the final round of Bsh1's Philosophy and Ethics Tournament. Congrats to Zaradi for making it to the final. I very much look forward to the debate. Food security: "The state of having reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food" [1] According to the United States Department of Agriculture, "food insecurity is limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways" [2]. Debate structure: R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments and rebuttals R3: Arguments and rebuttals R4: Rebuttals, no new arguments [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.ers.usda.gov...
who can make best yo mamma jokes!!!

definitions: bet: something that is laid, staked, or pledged typically between two parties on the outcome of a contest or a contingent issue [1] yo momma jokes: humorous statements that are directed about the opponents mother. make: to cause to exist, occur, or appear [2] First I must ask what you mean exactly by your resolution (who can make best yo mamma jokes! !! ). As this is a question I am confused about how one can be PRO, or CON towards it. I would like an explanation but until then i shall argue the points you made in the first round. PRO states: "i bet i can make better yo mamma jokes than you! !! ", However there are multiple things wrong with this statement. Firstly, according to your profile,[3], you are 17 years old and living in Texas. If this is in fact true then it is illegal for you to make any sort of bet. In Texas the legal age to bet, is 18 years old, an age at which you have not reached. As 18 is also the age at which you can bet in Michigan I decline your bet as it would be against the law to accept it. Furthermore your statement about being able to make better yo mamma jokes is something I find highly unlikely that you can do. The definition of make is to cause to exist occur or appear. As you are not an all powerful being I doubt it is possible for you to cause a yo mamma joke to exist. Most likely what you planned to do was to surf the Internet until you found some funny jokes. However this would not be you making the jokes. If you were to make the joke you would have to cause it to exist. I find no way for a joke to "exist" it is simply a statement that is meant to be humorous. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . http://www.debate.org... [4] . http://rose.casinocitytimes.com...
Transgender Bathroom Rights

You haven't responded to the fact that I debunked your past claims. You can't just go into a debate with pure emotion and make up random facts, you must back it up with evidence. Anyways, to start, you said this has been happening for a long time. All of the women that were sexually assaulted by transgenders were recent. The reasons the males did those things is because they said they were entitled to the bathroom of their choice. They made statements such as "The new transgender law allows it, I have a right to be here". That man who said that literally stripped him self bare naked in a women's locker room in front of many children and women, doing so because of passed state legislature. That's wrong, people should be able to use the bathroom without fearing having to deal with jerks like these. Also, the reason we are more concerned for women is because none of the instances were male on male, and facts show it's almost always male on female, 84.7% of the sexual assaults were M to F.
Transgender Bathroom Rights

This has been happening for a long time, its just now that the news started to blow up with it. Mainly people have been talking about males going into the female restrooms. But what if a transgender guy wants to go into the men's restroom? He most likely isn't going to get raped. So why can't he go in? And when you said the porta-potties are alone, they aren't. They are usually in a row with lines of men and women waiting to go in. The same thing with the bathroom stalls. It is an enclosed space where you poop. If people are worried with men taking pictures (and women can take pictures to) then bring the wall from the floor to the ceiling. . Its not like people in the stalls are going to be fondling their boobs while they pee. Where I live, the bathroom usually has around 10 people waiting to pee. If a guys walked in and started to rape someone the other people would get help. People just want to take a dump where they feel most comfortable.
Transgender Bathroom Rights

I'm going to debunk that right now. To start, your claim that many counties don't have gender separated bathrooms is a fallacy. This is false, and the research has been done. I've looked into this and found no evidence to support that claim. Next your incredibly false and uneducated claim that the FBI has 0 sexual assault accounts that have happened in bathrooms by transgenders is debunked with evidence. There was a university in which multiple women were sexually assaulted in their bathroom by a transgender. Another incident occurred where a man that "identified" as a girl filmed HOURS of footage of women/girls using the bathroom, and he was easily able to do so because he was allowed in based on his "gender identity". Another man was jailed after sexually assaulting multiple women at a shelter. He said he identified as a women and walked in, and innocent women paid the price because of it. Also, your comparison is to porto-potties is invalid as only one person is in one at once.
Transgender Bathroom Rights

There's an article pointing out how baseless these rape accusations and an FBI report that 0 rapes have occurred in this context conservatives are pushing forward. The same article points out that bathtubs kill 340 people a year, shopping on black Friday kills 550 people a year, and yet 0 incidents of a transgender person raping someone. So should we not let people get in a bathtub or shop on black Friday? Many counties don't separate bathrooms by gender at all. And we have been using non gender-specific bathrooms forever, porta-potties. Those porta-potties are just like bathroom stalls. People will walk in, and close no matter what gender they are. The only difference is that those porta-potties are in a room designated for those genders, instead of out in public. So what are these perverted people been doing all those years? The porta-potties at many public events are right there. Have you seen someone sexually assaulted at near a porta-pottie? No? Bathrooms are the same thing.
Transgender Bathroom Rights

Transgender people like all other people deserve rights. They do not deserve extra rights. This puts young women at risk, being that over 82% of rape is male on female. There have been hundreds of reports of hours of footage being recording by "transgender" people, that are just perverts. Sexual assault risk will increase, especially if a full grown man is in the same bathroom with a little girl all by herself. Also, if you do this, then there are no bathrooms anymore for specific people. Everyone can identify as the opposite gender. By doing this you are literally saying it's a free ticket to use whatever bathroom you want, and Female and Male bathrooms are no longer a valid concept. This also has an impact on our society. I'm up for tolerance, but there is such a thing as too much tolerance. I want to keep conservative values. By the way, go back to the 40's and 50's, and look around. You didn't see any of this, because everyone had their own gender and stuck to it. Sorry not sorry..
In Vitro Fertilization

Legal issues arise when, after the embryos are frozen, but before implantation, couples divorce and disagree about what should be done with the frozen embryos. The available options usually involve donation to the IVF clinic for research purposes, donation to another infertile couple, or use by one of the members of the original couple still wanting to have a child.At present there are no federal statutes that provide a uniform consensus on resolving the disputes over the ownership of pre-embryos. Several states have enacted legislation to address the disposition of frozen embryos.A review of the literature, state case law and state legislation makes clear that scholars, courts and legislatures cannot agree on the future of frozen pre-embryos. Most agree that federal legislation should be enacted. According to some commentators, the legislature must first define the rights of a pre-embryo by determining its legal status. Scholars state that courts and legislatures may apply three types of legal status to pre-embryos. The first is the "right to life" approach which maintains that life begins at fertilization and that pre-embryos should never be destroyed. The second approach gives pre-embryos the "status of property" and focuses upon the rights of the donors. The third is the "special respect" approach, which advocates a balancing test that takes into account the rights of all parties. In conclusion IVF is a complicated and expensive process that does not always provide positive results yet instead can cause physical and emotional harm which increases the amount of risks and begins to out way the pros with cons. (In Vitro Fertilization: Who Gets the Pre-Embryos After Divorce?)