BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Emryonic stem cell research

You mention that it's a way for mothers to rid of unwanted children. They were irresponsible enough to have unprotected; intercourse and then rid of the outcome. However, that is another argument. Government banning ESC use. According to annenbergclassroom, getting the cells for the research means destroying a human embryo; in other words, it means destroying a form of human life. This has set some of the public against it. A recent ruling by a federal judge has overturned President Obama's executive order, saying that it violated a 1987 law prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for any research in which a human embryo is destroyed. Joyce states that the government banned stem cell research, which forced scientists to use alternatives, like amniotic fluid cells. Alternatives are useless for one and amniotic cells can't be used on humans. "The discovery shouldn't be used as a replacement for human embryonic stem cell research", Dr. George Dale states. It is also a waste of money and time.
Emryonic stem cell research

The use of embryonic stem cells for scientific research benefits the population more than simply disposing of them. Abortion though controversial does play a part in our society, according to about73.com over 1 million abortions occur each and every year in the United States, world wide it reaches anywhere from 30-40 million. The occurrence of abortion is inevitable, it provides a way for a mother who is not prepared or may have been sexually assaulted to avoid the strenuous task of raising an unwanted child. The abortion removes the early developing fetus from the whom, but what is done with the fetus afterward? According to afterabortion.com most fetus are simply disposed of rather than donated to scientific research. The fetuses are thrown in to a large container and sent to a bio-disposal company which than commences to cremate the fetus among with other amputated or thrown away body parts from the medical field. Rather than throw these away their cells can be harvested and put toward curing disease and helping others. The stem cells from each and every single one can go toward saving sever peoples lives, and instead they are treated like a dirty needle.
Emryonic stem cell research

According to cbhd.org, scientist have been successful in using non-embryonic (adult) stem cells. In contrast to research on embryonic stem cells, non-embryonic stem cells research has already resulted in numerous instances of actual clinical benefit to patients. The belief that non-embryonic stem cells are less able to differentiate into multiple cell types or be sustained in the labs-has been repeatedly challenged by experimental results that have suggested otherwise. Though embryonic stem cells have been purported as holding great medical promise, reports of actual clinical success have been few. Instead, scientists conducting research on embryonic stem cells have encountered significant obstacles-including tumor formation, unstable gene expression, and an inability to stimulate the cells to form the desired type of tissue. It may indeed be telling that some biotechnology companies have chosen not to invest financially in embryonic stem cell research and some scientists have elected to focus their research exclusively o non-embryonic stem cell research.
Emryonic stem cell research

The potential of embryonic stem cells is limitless in the medical field, according to healthresearchfunding.org if embryonic stem cells received the proper research and funding it requires it could help up to 1/3 of the entire United States ' population. Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells that in the whom differentiate in order to make up all of our internal organs, limbs, skin, etc. By using these undifferentiated cells scientist now have a way to potentially cure many fatal diseases such as Alzheimer, Parkinson, and even heart disease. These cells are are introduced into the the hosts body and they differentiate in order to replace cells that have been damaged. The national institutes of health said that embryonic stem cells can, again with proper research and funding, help us learn more about how undifferentiated cells become differentiated, which could lead to a possible lead to the curing of cancer. These cells can also act as a test subject for new narcotics and drugs, testings like these are already used today on different cell lines yet with the abundance and availability of embryonic stem cells a variety of tests can be done, and get animals out of testing laboratories. The national institute of health has also said that stem cells largest and most amazing potential is in using them in therapies. These cells because they can become several others are allowed to become skin for burn victims, or possibly limbs for disabled veterans, and even completely new organs for those who have organ failure. The potential in embryonic stem cell usage is limitless and with the abundant shortage of organ donors, people waiting for a transplant could possibly be waiting for years in order to have their life saved, but with embryonic stem cells they could be helped as soon as possible.
Emryonic stem cell research

It is more ethical to end the child's suffering before the child can experience it. Fox news states that anti-abortion groups oppose research on stem cells derived from aborted fetuses. They reject the argument that since abortion is already legal and women will have them, that stem cells should be used from aborted fetuses because they would otherwise go to waste. Opponents of research on embryonic cells, including many religious and anti-abortion groups contend that embryos are human beings with the same rights-and thus entitled to the same abuse as anyone else. They believe life starts at the moment of conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, since a distinct organism has come into being. Plus the destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life. According to explorestemcells.co.uk, since the advent of stem cell research, one barrier to furthering stem cell research has been religion. The destruction of an embryo that occurs when embryonic stem cells are extracted has angered them out, who see it as "murder" or the destruction of human life. They support adult stem cells because it is the extraction from adult tissues and does not result in the destruction of an embryo.
Emryonic stem cell research

Of the 1.21 million women in America every year that get abortions according to about73.com over 50% are under the age of 24. Also, over 60% of these women say that they cannot handle the responsibility of having a baby, the baby has a serious medical disorder, or the baby was the result of an incestuous relationship or rape. If the adult is not ready for parenthood then the child will most likely be neglected and not raised in a proper home, much like if the child were the result of something horrendous such as rape or incest. Neglection in a child is defined as failure to give proper care for a child and provide all necessities according to americanhumane.org. The neglection of children will also result in severe mental and sometimes even physical problems, according to americanhumane.org 1000 children's death were associated with some sort of neglection. Though this is not always the case some abortions are also the only result for parents who have a child with a severe medical disorder. The emotional struggle of raising a child with a severe disorder such as Tay-Sachs or Neimann-Pick disease is far more than most parents will face in their life. After the struggle usually comes the appreciation for the child and the loving years that follow, but after the child passes another emotional block sets in. Lastly, the child with said deadly genetic disease will live life in and out of hospitals and in severe cases die before the age of 10, so is it more ethical to let a child suffer and struggle through life or to end their possible suffering before the child can experience it?
Emryonic stem cell research

According to eurostemcell.org, an embryo is still human because it develops into a baby. It's a continuous process and any attempt to pinpoint when "personhood" begins is arbitrary. Although an embryo doesn't currently have the characteristics of a person, it will become a person and should be given the respect and dignity of a person. By taking embryonic stem cells out of an early embryo, we prevent the embryo from developing in its normal way. This means it is prevented from becoming what it was programmed to become-a human being. We protect a person's life and interests not because they are valuable from the point of view of the universe, but because they are important to the person concerned. Whatever moral status the human embryo has for us, the life that it lives has a value to the embryo itself.
Emryonic stem cell research

By definition a stem cell is an undifferentiated cell of a multicellular organism that is capable of producing more cells of the same type. The controversy surrounding stem cells and there usage is the way in which some of them are harvested, Embryonic stem cells are obtained through the leftover embryos after an abortion. The use of these embryos have some convinced that such research is a form of murder, however the embryo does not have a full moral status, it is not what we as a society consider to be a human. According to eurostemcell.org early embryos do not have the psychological, emotional, or physical properties associated with what society considers to be human. In fact a article published by nlm.nih.gov states that it takes up to 10 weeks for the embryo to from distinctive human features such as limbs, and other body parts. Also, the site provided that embryos do not have any feeling until near birth, all other movements occurring are simply reactions to the outside environment. Lastly, professor Michael Sandel of Harvard university provided a perfect scenario for deciding the moral status of an embryo, given the choice between a 5 year old child and a tray containing 10 embryos which would you save in a fire?
Emryonic stem cell research

According to lifeissues.net, no one has a right to destroy embryos to do this research. We should push ahead with successful and ethical adult stem cell research which involves as destruction of embryos. Cbhd.org states that adult stem cells ( non-embryonic) are present in adults, children, infants, placentas, umbilical cords, and cadavers. Obtaining stem cells from these sources does not result in certain harm to a human being. Justin Wing questions on mlive.com, "Is it right to take funding from adult stem cell research, which heals thousands each year, to fund embryonic stem cell research, which provides no cures? How many people die each year because they lack the adult stem cells that can give them life?
Are mainstream news networks bias

I mean it's just common sense at this point to see that MSNBC hasn't said one positive thing about Trump. I can't google "Important white inventions" without some blackwash just thrown into it that has nothing to do with what I want to find. The word bias "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." The prejudice of Donald Trump is paramount, I'm not arguing that it's all one way or the other, except it is more left leaning than right leaning. In main news networks that are known to the public. If I asked do you know, CNN, or MSNBC, or CBS. They'll say yes I know those. You say fox, and that's it. Population regardless, it's about being known and being able to reach out. Already 3 to 1 in known main news networks that are commonly talked about no OAN or NPR because obviously, the average person doesn't see that every day. The main news organization is a corporation that reports on news that that audience wants to hear. Yes all main news networks are biased in the sense they have an agenda that they want to say. As stated in the argument "Are mainstream news networks bias". Donations by the CEOs and the Veritas project show that yes, there is agendas in the media which make it obvious that spouting off propaganda just to get votes. Is tearing the country quite literally apart to the point that the Democrats have no standing for a candidate that will be able to win and we will have another 4 years of trump due to that. They run a weak camp and I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats lost 2-3 seats in this 2018 voting. You can come back and message me if I'm wrong.
National debt: We should not start paying it off right now

Thank you for your acceptance, Con. I will try to avoid a long-winded debate, since it's detracts from the focus necessary on key concepts. 1. The international currency is in U.S. dollars. The debt is in our own currency, and unlike other countries, we own the printing press. No other country in the world is like this. 2. The debt causes a problem when it has a "crowding out" effect on the private market. Meaning that when the government borrows too much money, interest rates rise making it harder for private business to remain profitable and inflation will be out of control. The government has been borrowing like crazy but interest rates remain low and inflation remains low. How can this be? Because our economy is not at full potential. Our unemployment rate remains so high, that if money is not spent to stimulate our economy, we would not be consuming and producing anywhere near our potential - all without the negative side effects. If government quit spending, it would make getting out of the recession even harder. We are at point "D" if we reduce government spending, because if we are in a recession that means our economy is not operating at full potential. With government spending, which adds to the national debt, we will be on the production possibilities line - operating our economy at full potential and reducing unemployment. The reason this happens, is because money stimulates demand in an economy. Once the economy picks up, and interest rates rise and unemployment falls, then we need to allocate more funds to pay off the national debt. 3. The important thing regarding the debt is not the total amount, but the amount in proportion to our GDP. It is important to look at the GDP/debt ratio and compare that to other nations (we are not at the top). To put it in perspective: If a business is borrowing 2 million dollars, that is a lot of debt. But if the business is producing 3 million dollars worth of product, it still makes a profit and the 2 million dollar debt is not as bad in comparison. Our GDP/DEBT ratio: Japan's GDP/DEBT ratio: (Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world [1]). 4. It is important to keep debt in check, but it is not bad, and is actually a good thing to help stimulate the economy especially when it is not being used to its full potential. The way to help alleviate the debt is to start paying it off once our economy starts picking back up again, not while it is in a recession. http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [1]
Flag Burning Should be Legal

Well, I will be honest with you, I was expecting someone living in the United States, but I shall put up with your conditions because I like you. Please understand that if you live in the United States, and not Iran (currently) I shall not consider Iran your country, only your country of origin. First off, you state that flag burning is unconstitutional in Iran, however, flags have been burned in Iran. A good example is an American flag that was burned in Tehran, Iran back in 2009. No legal action or attempts to stop the burning were made. Furthermore, Iran does promise a freedom of assembly, which gives people the right to gather so long as they have no firearms, I am going to assume that also counts for protests. Flag burning certainly can be legal, and I will be interested in you explaining the circumstances where it is illegal. I fully understand the safety concerns (fire hazards and smoke), however, I am willing to argue that if done safely, you have a right to be heard. You say that freedom of speech is bad, well, your talking to a guy who believes that there should only be one country ran under military dictatorship... So in most cases I would have to agree with you, unless it conflicted with that political viewpoint. And, it is justifiable to speak out against your own country, especially if you disagree with a law, action, or political philosophy taken by the country which you disagree with. Sources: http://www2.macleans.ca... http://www.servat.unibe.ch...
Flag Burning Should be Legal

Pleco, my title is Cherymenthol the Omnipotent. I am taking this debate on the grounds that you swear you will not alter the words of the resolution, which is, "Flag burning in your [meaning my] country, and even justifiable." My thesis is simple and sweet. 1) Flag Burning is unconstitutional in my country, Iran, as well as numerous other countries. 2) Flag burning can be legal, but under certain circumstances it is entirely illegal. 3) Then I will argue Free Speech is bad. 4) Then I will argue It is never justified to speak freely against one's country. Thank you and please vote Cherymenthol
Flag Burning Should be Legal

Hello, I am Pleco! And I shall accept the burden of proof that flag burning is constitutional for your country, and even justifiable. In the first round, we shall introduce each other and explain what our position is briefly, like I have done above. Then, we shall use the three rounds we have left to discuss the topic. That gives us three rounds to debate, and one round to say hello. Thank you, and please vote for Pleco.
Omnipotency is possible

Alright, Con switches over to a 'contradiction' in my case, dropping his other arguments. I far from contradict myself in my case. I offer two possibilities, two ways an being can be omnipotent. The first is that an omnipotent being can circumvent logic itself, and thus create logical contradictions. My second argument is that, failing the first, an omnipotent being can be bound by logic, and still be omnipotent. I'm not providing the two arguments together, but showing two different ways of being omnipotent. Just look at my first argument. In my first point under "Unlimited Power", I say logic doesn't bind an omnipotent being. In the second, I say, "Alternatively, an omnipotent being is bound by logic". Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said, "Alternatively, an omnipotent being CAN BE 'bound' by logic". Con then makes an argument about my upholding a biconditional statement. First of all, this is a completely new argument, and could have easily been brought up before. Apart from that, I do believe Con strawmans my statements. I do not say, "If omnipotent, then bound by logic", I say, "If a being is omnipotent, it can be bound by logic and remain omnipotent". The converse of this statement is true as well if said, "If a being can be bound by logic and remain omnipotent, then it is an omnipotent being". In this sense, logic isn't 'binding' omnipotence, it is just that you can't expect a being to produce nonsense, just as you can't expect hedge clippers to produce a delicious chocolate gateau. This whole debate boils down to two points, both of which go in my favor. 1) Omnipotent beings can bend logic, and do what we may consider impossible. This destroys all my opponent's reductio ad absurdum arguments, because, with an omnipotent being, absurdum is a possibility. If we accept my opponent's interpretation that omnipotence is the power to do everything, we must agree that this is includes the power to violate logic. 2) Even if you don't buy the above argument, an omnipotent being could be bound by logic, but remain omnipotent. Basically, omnipotency is the ability to do all that can be done. Square circles don't exist, and on top of that are nonsense. If you give two things mutually exclusive properties, they will remain mutually exclusive, plain and simple. Just as you can't expect complex architecture to rise out of cheese fondue, you can't expect an omnipotent being to produce logical nonsense.
Omnipotency is possible

I'll start this off with a couple of quotes. "an omnipotent being is bound by logic - it can only do things which are possible to do. Such examples as the square circle, or round triangle cannot be done, because they cannot exist. A square has one set of characteristics, and a circle another - they are mutually exclusive. In this light, omnipotence is the ability to do anything that can be done. " Does this sound like something he addressed later? Why yes it does. "Logic Doesn't Bind Omnipotence. Con shows some logical fallacies which bind omnipotence. If omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything, this includes circumventing logic. If a completely omnipotent being were to exist, logic would not bind it, and thus, these examples become meaningless. Con does nothing about this argument. You can vote on this point right now - logic doesn't need to bind a being who can do EVERYTHING. " You don't really need to read the full paragraphs there, but just note the first line of each quote, they directly contradict each other. My opponent will probably say something about how an omnipotent being is bound by logic is different than logic not binding omnipotence, but a definition is a biconditional statement. A biconditional statement is where a conditional statement and its converse are both true. Turning them into conditional statements is, "If it is an omnipotent being, then it is bound by logic. " It's converse is, "If it is bound by logic, then it is omnipotent. " According to my opponent, logic does not bind omnipotence. This directly negates his definition of omnipotence rendering his argument null. By accepting this debate, you accepted the definition and my interpretation of it, therefore, you cannot argue supreme authority because that is not part of the definition of omnipotence. You say I concede the debate because the omnipotent being can simply bend logic when earlier you said the being is bound by it. This argument is also null because my opponent directly contradicted himself. As you can clearly see, my opponent has either negated himself or broken the barrier of the definition he agreed to. This means that none of his points can be considered valid.
Omnipotency is possible

Con presents some arguments, but completely ignores mine. He provides some examples, which become meaningless when you view my arguments. Let's cross apply my case to his examples. A) Unlimited Power 1) Logic Doesn't Bind Omnipotence. Con shows some logical fallacies which bind omnipotence. If omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything, this includes circumventing logic. If a completely omnipotent being were to exist, logic would not bind it, and thus, these examples become meaningless. Con does nothing about this argument. You can vote on this point right now - logic doesn't need to bind a being who can do EVERYTHING. 2) Meaningless Tasks Are Meaningless. Again, no clash from Con. If omnipotence is the power to do everything that can be done, then an omnipotent being cannot do meaningless tasks. Just as you can't insert the Mona Lisa into an algebraic expression and expect to receive a five paragraph essay (this is meant to be logically inconsistent), you can't expect an omnipotent being to carry out logically meaningless tasks. 2) Con's Concession. Con doesn't touch his concession either. He interprets omnipotence as "being able to do everything", which means being able to sidestep logic. As weird as it sounds, an omnipotent being doesn't have to act by the laws of logic! Just as it could bypass the law of conservation of energy, or the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), it could bypass logic. Con hasn't touched this point, and this is the second thing you should vote on - we agree that logic doesn't need to bind an omnipotent being. B) Supreme Authority This isn't touched at all by Con. It is possible for a being to have unlimited authority, provided it is the only one in existence, or the despot of all that is.