BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Governments must act more decisively to stop the spread of AIDS

I welcome the opportunity to debate drafterman once again and I thank him for posting such an enlightening argument - it is, indeed, an astounding revelation that poor little kiddies with leukaemia can be cured by injecting them with HIV. This is also great news for AIDS victims, by the way, because if HIV can cure cancer it duly follows that cancer can cure HIV. That is why I further propose that inmates in AIDS colonies should be subjected to very high levels of carcinogenic radiation – there is no absolute guarantee that it will cure them of AIDS, of course, but it has to be worth a try. Furthermore, because supplies of HIV-infected blood from HIV-carriers in the community cannot be guaranteed, AIDS colonies could be of great benefit to cancer patients because supplies from the colonies would be reliable: the colonies' chaplains (armed with submachine guns for their own protection) could use extraordinary rendition techniques to transfer troublemaking volunteers to off-site clinics where they could be coercively persuaded to donate blood. Moving on, while it is the case that modern medication can mitigate the effects of AIDS victims and, thus prolong their lives, I disagree with him that it "doesn't matter" if someone becomes infected with HIV. As my opponent conceded, AIDS victims still die young and, furthermore, the medication used is very expensive and has to be paid for by the general public through higher private, state or national health insurance contributions. Finally, my opponent makes a fleeting reference to the "personal liberties" of HIV-spreaders but fails to mention that most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. HIV-infected people have caused tens of millions of deaths since the 1980's and will cause millions more unless governments act more decisively to stop the spread of AIDS. Thank you.
Governments must act more decisively to stop the spread of AIDS

Pro suggests that the appropriate course of action, vis-a-vis HIV/AIDs, is wholesale quarantine, but then just dives right into the practical matters, without actually addressing the matter of whether we should actually quarantine people with HIV/AIDs. Ignoring the irrelevant issues of personal rights, it is clear that we should deliberately allow the spread of HIV/AIDs because of the beneficial side-effects of the disease.We should acknowledge that this is no longer the '80's. HIV/AIDs is no longer an immediate, life-threatening disease. The median age of death from HIV has increased from 36 in 1987 to 46 in 2007 in an almost strictly linear fashion (1). In comparison, the overall life-expectancy has increased only 2.5 years during roughly the same period of time (75.4 in 1990 to 77.9 in 2007). That trend isn't linear and seems to be leveling off (2). If we extrapolate, we can expect the median age of death from HIV to exceed the overall life-expectancy in little more than 60 years. So while HIV/AIDs may technically still be fatal and incurable, it will nevertheless be treatable to the degree that it doesn't matter.However, it should be noted that the degree to which HIV/AIDs can be treated depends on access to adequate medical facilities, something that will be lost if we confine them to physically remote location run by ignorant clergymen, especially considering that some of the most religious people consider HIV/AIDs to be a form of divine retribution (3).Now that we understand that HIV/AIDs is treatable, with progress hard at work at minimizing and almost negating the ill -side effects, we should address the benefits of HIV/AIDs existing. Cancer is the leading cause of death among children from ages 1 - 14 (4). One third of these is leukemia. A recent development in the treatment for leukemia involves reprogramming the patient's T-cells to recognize and destroy the cancerous blood cells. What's good at invading T-cells? HIV (5).Given the high level of mutability of HIV, the limits to its potential appear are only our imagination.In conclusion, we have a treatable disease (HIV) which can be used to cure a worse disease (leukemia) with far greater potential. And Pro wishes to round up the people that have this life saving virus and put them in the hands of people who, on principle, hate them and desire their eternal torment.[1] http://www.cdc.gov...[2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.milforddailynews.com...[4] http://www.cancer.gov...[5] http://www.nytimes.com...
Governments must act more decisively to stop the spread of AIDS

When people used to contract a contagious disease for which there is no cure, such as leprosy, they were isolated from the rest of society in order to prevent that disease from spreading. Thankfully, these days, leprosy can be easily treated (1) which is why sufferers are no longer confined to leper colonies. But what about people with HIV/AIDS? There is still no cure for this fatal disease yet people infected with HIV are allowed to roam the streets without let or hindrance. As a result of the total lack of restrictions on HIV-carriers' movements 25 million people worldwide - including many children - have contracted HIV and died. (2) Obviously, this uncontrolled spread of AIDS cannot be allowed to continue any longer and HIV-positive people must be rounded up and herded into AIDS colonies without undue delay, but this policy presents two obvious questions: 1 - Where will these colonies be located? 2 - Who will be responsible for running them? To answer the first question, the colonies should be as secure as possible in order to minimise the inmates' opportunity to escape and the obvious location would be an island surrounded by hostile waters. The US has plenty such islands in Alaska and elsewhere, while the UK has many such islands in the South Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Similarly the French, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians have isolated islands that can be pressed into service. Other countries will have to look at alternatives such a sealing off mountain valleys or allocating remote stretches of desert to accommodate AIDS colonies. To answer the second question, traditionally the churches took responsibility for running leper hospices and colonies (3) but now that there is no need for leper colonies the churches have the opportunity to, once again, demonstrate their compassion for the afflicted by picking up the baton and managing and financing the new AIDS colonies. Of course, the AIDS sufferers themselves may have some objections to my proposal, but let there be no doubt: if the spread of AIDS is allowed to continue unchecked even more people will die. Therefore, it is imperative that governments act decisively to establish AIDS colonies without any further delay. Thank you. (1) http://www.who.int... (2) http://www.globalhealth.org... (3) http://www.buildinghistory.org...
Governments must act more decisively to stop the spread of AIDS

"[I]f HIV can cure cancer it duly follows that cancer can cure HIV."It duly follows? I'd be interested in seeing a more fleshed out demonstration of this. This reasoning would state that "If radiation can cure cancer, then cancer can cure radiation poisoning!"Reliability of HIV infected bloodHere we have to admit to some sort of trade-off. Agreed that, if you round up all HIV/AIDs victims, you have a readily available supply of blood. But the success of your isolation would be counter-productive to this purpose. Once you've rounded up most HIV/AIDs victims, that supply will become stagnant and will slowly dwindle. So we will have great, unfettered access, but only for a limited time, then not at all.However, if we allow HIV/AIDs to remain wild, consistent access may be more difficult, but we are guaranteed the existence of the supply. If we are worried about the virus being eradicated through natural means (unlikely) we could institute an injection program where a certain number of kids will be administered injections alongside their normal vaccines.Cost of TreatmentThe medication and treatment of HIV/AIDs is a moot point unless my opponent suggests that his islanders will not be receiving said treatment. If, in both scenarios, victims will be treated, then the cost of said treatment doesn't affect choosing between said scenarios."Right" to LifeHowever many lives HIV/AIDs kill, it doesn't even make the top ten (1). Cancer, however, is #2. Clearly the trade off would be beneficial. A possible objection is that we'd just be swapping cancer for HIV, however the HIV used to treat cancer is altered such that it only attacks the cancer. It is otherwise impotent. However, we need the existence of "real" HIV in order to create the modified HIV.[1] http://www.cdc.gov...
Computers can replace teachers

Pro forfeited that round, So I'm not going to make too many points. One, Group projects can be monitored by teachers, But it's very hard for a computer to realize what parts of a group are failing. Two, You don't know how to handle different types of people. We've all had bad and good teachers and knowing how to handle many different types is a very important life skill. You don't get that with computers. That's all for now. Hopefully pro doesn't forfeit next round.
Computers can replace teachers

While one day teachers may be able to be replaced by computers, It's impossible now for a teacher to be completely replaced by a computer. I'll give an example - say there are two kids, Ryder and Alex, Who both learn differently. Ryder is a very visual learner - he can analyze maps and get it. But Alex prefers hands-on demonstrations - he doesn't want to look at a diagram of a cell, He'd like a 3-d model of one. A computer can display both of them, Sure, But it takes a lot longer for a computer to say "Hey, Ryder learns better when he looks at a chart". Teachers can do that much faster, However, As they are trained to look for different types of learning. If the teacher is explaining how, Say, DNA unzips, A teacher can say "Ryder, Do you want to look at a 3d model, Or did you get that? " Whereas a computer, To stop a kid not understanding, Would have to have diagrams and models and audio and charts and drawings and etc. I have other arguments, But I can't fit them in 1000 characters.
Computers can replace teachers

Computers can easily replace teachers without any obstruction. Teachers have become obsolete. It's high time to replace them. Teachers show racism and other problems which needs to change at last and now is the best time. As time is crossing teachers is jus wasting time of students and playing with their future. Computers can teach students in 1/2 or 1/4th period of time. What about smart classes. They have shown excellency. The rate of students passing has increased after introducing the smart classes.
A Reading of Genesis 2

My opponent has taken the position that Genesis implies that there was more than God before the universe. I shall refute his arguments. :The Beginning: Pro quotes the famous start of Genesis 'in the beginning', claiming that the beginning represents the dimension of time. Therefore, God existed with time before God created the world. However, this is simply a misunderstanding of what is meant by 'the beginning'. It is clear by the context that 'beginning' means 'The act or process of bringing or being brought into being' In other words, far from implying that time existed before the beginning of the universe, it simply refers to the timeless event where God created everything, including time. :Good: 'Good' according to Christianity is a property of God himself. When God says something is good, he is simply referring to a standard that is part of himself. He is not referring to standard that exists outside of him, but part of his own essential nature. In other words, when he says something is good, he is simply claiming that it is in accord with his own standards. Good is not something that exists simultaneously with God, but part of God and therefore not outside of him. I would remind my opponent that pointing out that the bible does not say God created a particular thing is not the same as saying it says he didn't. Obviously, the bible would not document every single thing that God created - otherwise, Genesis would be millions of pages long! Instead, Genesis simply uses the words 'heaven and earth' as an umbrella term to refer to everything that makes up the universe, including time. I have provided the interpretations of Genesis accepted by the vast majority of informed Christians today. It is up to my opponent to show how these interpretations are incorrect, and further to show why they must be interpreted in the way he thinks. Until then, the resolution is defeated.
A Reading of Genesis 2

Thanks Kinesis for taking this debate. I really look forward to seeing how you are going to refute it. Before beginning my argument, I again provide for my readers the first passage of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light': and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." This passage, which describes a point, the "beginning," at which God creates the world, never states that God created "the beginning." Rather, because God is "in the beginning." God exists with something else, namely, the "beginning." For the sake of simplicity, we can call the "beginning" "time." As we see throughout all of Genesis, there is a clear progression of events, a dimension of time present. But God never creates "time," according to the precise words of Genesis. Therefore, before God created heaven and earth, God existed with "time." To summarize: God: creator of the heaven and earth at the "beginning." Time: A dimension that God must have occupied for the "beginning" to exist. If my opponent prefers not to call the "beginning" time, then I ask that he still recognize the argument being made. The specific argument in question is that God existed "in the beginning" before creating the world. Therefore, God existed with something. My second argument is that some form of the word "good," interpreted however loosely readers want to, must have existed simultaneously with God before the start. Genesis states, "And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness." It is never states that God creates any kind of judgment, much less the particular category of "good." Therefore, I argue that the category or concept or idea or judgment or whatever you want to call it of "good" existed simultaneously with God before the heaven and the earth were created.
A Reading of Genesis 2

In a previous debate, "A Reading of Genesis," I argued that a close reading of the KJV of the Book of Genesis would demonstrate that God existed with something else simultaneously before the creation of the world. In that argument, I argued that language existed with God simultaneously. In this argument, I would like to present the same resolution that I did before, that God existed simultaneously with something else before the creation of the world, but this time, I will argue that God existed with something other than language. Again, for the sake of this argument, we will assume that anything written in the King James version of Genesis is truth. Furthermore, no other sources will be allowed. Only a close reading of the words of Genesis can be brought to bear on this argument. In Round 1, my opponent will accept the debate but offer no arguments. In Round 2 and 3, I will present my argument, and my opponent will have Round 2 and 3 to attempt to refute it.
the meaning of life is joy

when you are asked the question, what is the meaning of life, are you thinking about what brings meaning to your life, or as a general what the true meaning could be? belief is be lie, belief is imagination because you cant believe anything without your imagination, I cant believe in reality, and I cant know imagination, that's why you have to look in order to read these words, you could imagine the words in this reply and believe you have an answer and just type away, like you can believe you know what you neighbor is doing, but know is now, matter, sensory experience, and only sensory experience is true, sensory experience is life as im dead without my senses, so life is true and if meaning is emotional understanding, then the only true positive meaning is joy, as joy is the only positive and true emotion
the meaning of life is joy

life is true, so the true meaning of life can never be mental, as matter is true, and my physical body is matter, therefore only 1 emotion is the true positive meaning of life life is sensory experience as I am dead without my senses. there is no life in my imagination, imagination is a dead nation, and my neighbor is imaginary belief=be lie=imagination=false know=certain=now I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, and I can imagine and believe what my neighbor is doing
the meaning of life is joy

The meaning of life is an opinionated subject, therefor you cannot put one single aspect of life (that not all people have) as it's meaning. Doing so is positive thinking, which is nice, but the argument does not stand up on it's own. It is usually believed that we, as humans, are complex creatures with many emotions but new studies are seeing something else. Scientists believe that as humans we have four basic emotions; "...happy, sad, afraid/surprised, and angry/disgusted (Time Magazine, Human Emotions Are Not As Complex As We Thought)." Setting the meaning of life as an inherently positive emotional standard is also a very dangerous and contradictory thing. What if somebody's positivity/joy comes from the stress, sadness, and mourning of others? What if the person is an absolute sadist or drug addict? What if this person is a deranged serial killer who's only way to have a good time is to go to the nearest public park, strangle some stranger, then running away and evading police? What that person did might have made them happier, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you think that they might be feeling joy right now, watching their family mourn the death of a close one? People like this exist, and more of them exist than I'd like to admit. There are scary people here on earth. Same thing goes for religions/thought processes. If their only way of reaching eternal joy is through the detriment of others, and they go through with it, they become joyous and proud in a delusional sense. ISIS, the WBC, and many other religious organizations go through with this for their own little heavens. While, yes, there are many good religions and many good philosophies there will always be a negative for every positive. In all, the meaning of life SHOULD (there is no specific/defined meaning) be making others happy, whilst retaining your own satisfaction. I anxiously await your rebuttal. Sources: A) http://time.com... B) Common Sense
the meaning of life is joy

joy is physical experience, like seeing a beautiful sunrise or like having sex Is an intense physical experience, and meaning is emotional understanding, and only 2 emotions are true, joy and pain, so the only positive emotion is joy. any mental emotion like love is in the low slow negative vibration of the past, love is low slow vampire energy, and it has necessary bad attached to it, so the point for me is to have as much joy with the other person, as much true positive experience , its not about love. the word love is mostly used in a negative sense, unless you see it on tv where everything is false love is religion as it stands in a mode of being separated and I have to rely on it, being one is true. religion=rely on other example drugs, sugar, coffe, fat foods, all addictions based on joy know=(is)physical experience of now=matter=now=life=joy/pain
A Resolution to Legalize Same Sex Marriage in the United States

I now pronounce you husband and wife." These seven words have come to mean alot to couples in the world. No bond between two people is more powerful then marriage. However I think it is very important to observe two words in much detail. HUSBAND and WIFE, not husband and husband or wife and wife. Marriage came about through the Jewish and Christian religions, which see homosexuality as a sin. Genisis states, "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man." For these four reasons I see no other way then to negate the resolution... 1.) Homosexuality is a sin according to the various religions responsible for the founding of marriage 2.) Legally allows children to be deprived of a mother or father 3.) Sets bad example for future generations and can encourage public displays of homosexual behavior
A Resolution to Legalize Same Sex Marriage in the United States

A Resolution to Legalize Same Sex Marriage in the United States Just to start...I would like to start of with a quote. "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr.Seuss Because I strongly agree with Dr. Seuss I stand in the strong affirmation of the resolution for the following three main reasons... (1) Society (2) Marriage and (3) Relationships/Love
Kapkan is worse than mute

Dust is very much a game mechanic in the game, and a large factor in hiding the laser, this in game tutorial says that it creates dust. the laser is actually very faint and hard to see in the dust and in general also most people aren't even looking for it https://i.ytimg.com... they just walk right by it. people can easily drone out and destroy the Signal Disruptors with Twitch and its pretty hard to hide a giant black box you put on the ground, frost has nothing to do with this argument. Kapkan is definitely still viable and a good addition to any team.
Kapkan is worse than mute

Game mechanics do not work like that, dust is not a factor, and anyone is able to see the giant laser that comes across a window or door. Mute however can hide his jammers well and nobody can drone out to find the jammers like they can with Kapkan traps, to be honest Frost is just an improved Kapkan. Nobody can replace Mute, Kapkan is just not a viable option anymore.
Kapkan is worse than mute

You aren't always relying on an enemy to be bad with the EDD's you just have to rely on game mechanics, when a barrier is broken down on a door or window there is a moment of dust and debris floating around to provide cover for the person who just broke it down, but if you use an EDD on a door way where they don't expect any enemies to be they just rush in and the EDD laser is hidden by the dust as well if you place it down low near the feet they wont ever see it coming because people don't look down. Also mute will just be jamming devices such as the Cluster Charge from Fuze or Twitch drones but can be easily combated because of its limited range and a Signal Disruptor can't kill people so it has to be used by someone who can get kills