BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Country landowners should have the right to enjoy their own private property as they see fit.

My family own a number of extensive rural properties, three in Europe and another in one of Britain's former North American colonies – the United States, where the natives rather quaintly refer to country estates as "ranches".* Over in America, country landowners are quite entitled to use firearms to defend their property from trespassers and, furthermore, they are also permitted to exercise their right to hunt vermin such as raccoons, cougars and manatees using guns, traps or horses and hounds as they please. However, here in England, if a landowner takes a pot shot at some errant rambler who has strayed off the public footpath and onto his property, he can find himself in pretty hot legal water. Indeed, gentleman farmer Tony Martin was found guilty of murder simply because he shot a couple of trespassing teenagers in the back as they tried to flee his property. This travesty of justice disgraced the English legal system as the landowner, being a man of superior breeding, was brought up to expect such matters would be overlooked in the light of his elevated social status (and no doubt generous donations to the local police benevolent fund). Furthermore, he only killed one of the boys and in any case, they were frightfully common little oiks, one of whom had a distinctly foreign look about him. Thankfully, Mr. Martin was well connected socially and the judiciary duly ordered his release from prison. He now gives lectures on the menace of filthy little proles who think they have the right to wander willy-nilly over one's private property. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Now I turn to the subject of hunting with hounds. Sadly, thanks to the loony-left British Government's ban on hunting with hounds, the days are long gone when a group of respectable sportsmen could set a pack of viscous dogs onto a defenceless fox and watch them humanely tear the animal limb from limb. http://www.league.org.uk... These days a gentleman mounted upon his horse, cannot even chase down and bludgeon to the ground anti-hunt protesters without being summoned to appear in court, such is the audacity of these so-called bleeding heart liberal-types who film our rural activities. http://www.realca.co.uk... Indeed, the fear of prosecution has obliged landowners to hire lackeys from the surrounding villages to track down and rough-up any do-gooders that may be in the vicinity, thus denying rural gentlefolk the pleasure of horse-whipping some sandal-wearing riff-raff to within an inch of their life. http://www.realca.co.uk... Put simply, the urban elite of Britain's Labour Government just don't understand the rural way of life and they certainly don't understand that a country landowner should have a right to do as he pleases on his own private property. * Please follow the links listed hereunder to satellite images of the properties in question: ï¿½England (Chigwell) http://maps.google.co.uk... ï¿½Slovakia (Klastor) http://maps.google.co.uk... ï¿½Slovakia (Ostrava) http://maps.google.co.uk... ï¿½USA (Bradenton, FL) http://maps.google.co.uk...
Mormons are not christains

First: Mormons do not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather in a difference Jesus. This is why most Biblical Christians emphatically insist that Mormons are not Christians. Let me explain. The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. The man-god of Mormonism was made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."
Gene Therapy

Thank you immensely for inviting me to this debate! Firstly I feel I must point out that there is many potential different subjects for debate with the topic stated as "gene therapy". Since in the first post the statement is made: "it should be acceptable for parents planning on having a child to perform gene-selection upon embryos" I intend to take the topic to mean performing gene therapy on embryos. There is a clear distinction between gene selection in embryos, and that of our topic- gene therapy in embryos. The first option is scientifically sound, and relatively ethically mute (another name for the technique is in vitro-fertilization), whereas our topic-gene therapy is much different. Gene therapy involves harvesting eggs, fertilizing them, raising them into embryos, then sequencing the genes of each embryo harvested. At this point gene selection ends because we simply choose the best (best is a subjective term- as is the choice) and then implant the embryo into the mother. Gene therapy (if it is our topic) involves taking the genetic sequence of the embryos and altering them before implanting them in the mother. The potential results (I make no claim towards benefit or fault in any of these yet) of gene therapy are as follows: 1) Removal of diseases 2) Choice of gender 3) complete control over immediate genetic lineage -(the following choices are unfounded in terms of the science- they are fantasy results) 4) Control of appearance of children- ranging from simply making them attractive to giving them animal parts 5) control over intelligence of offspring 6) control over sexuality of offspring -One point I stress- that needs to be made clear is that any medical genetic technique (gene-selection, gene-therapy) can ever be used to control the entire genetic population. Both techniques are and will always be highly invasive and not popular in terms of actually having the procedure done. Undoubtedly the expensiveness- the limited amount of control that the techniques will actually give us, and the invasiveness (to the female body) will lead people to avoid using the techniques mainstream unless there is actual fear held by the parents (in terms of passing on genetic diseases). By now I imagine you have might be confused as to the actual position where in stand, so I will clarify it: Gene therapy, raises little ethical issue and thus should be an acceptable practice. We can say that Gene therapy is of little ethical significance because human and genetic biology imposes severe limits on what actually can be done with genes (remember the fantasy results). Secondly the cost, invasiveness, and limited amount of real results means that gene therapy would only ever get used on occasion, and would primarily be used to control genetic diseases. thus gene therapy should be acceptable.
Liberal

"The label that is despised and hated by all that oppose change and reform. I start this debate to argue that change IS for the better, and that without it we can NOT improve the current state of the economy, and can NOT improve living conditions for an average citizen." --> (Fundamental flaw) My opponent is arguing an imperative of which is flawed. Change can bring good things, yes. However change does not mean inherent goodness. E.g. Hitler brought about change in Germany, and see how that turned out. Lenin and Stalin brought change and it destroyed the society of which it was meant to help. I will refute each basic premise and negate my opponents case. 1) Obama will institute a policy that will help the economy and the middle class. --> This is totally wrong. Obama's economic policy is based on an extreme tax increase. As shown by history in the US, increase in taxes undermine consumer confidence and lead to less investment in the stock markets. The US economy is a free market economy, with slight governmental regulations. However, for the most part companies and businesses have the most say in their own workings. The only time this is infringed on is if criminal activities are occurring, or anything else of the nature. When consumer confidence is low and investment is low, the whole US economy plummets, hurting the middle and upper classes. Obama's economic plan is one that will destroy the US economy and break the fundamental free-market value that is the basis of American society. Therefore, Obama's tax plan will hurt the economy, and thus hurt the middle class. 2) This policy is change. --> No, this policy is not change. This is the very foundation of former president Carter's plan. His plan put the US economy to brink of depression. Fortunately Reagan saved the day with a Republican view of the economy. I.e. low taxes, and fiscal responsibility. Since this type os economic plan has been implemented before, it is not change. Thank you.
Liberal

Liberal. The label that is despised and hated by all that oppose change and reform. I start this debate to argue that change IS for the better, and that without it we can NOT improve the current state of the economy, and can NOT improve living conditions for an average citizen. Without change, we will never see the light at the end of the tunnel that is TRUE freedom and liberty. Without change, our country will continue to depend on foreign oil. Without change, American families will continue to slip into debt and poverty. Without change, no jobs will be formed in the United States, but continue to be formed in foreign countries. Without change, we as United States citizens will continue live in a country of lies and of a deprived economy. Why do people oppose change? This is a question that baffles me every day. The best explanation I have come up with is that men and woman of the United States are scared to change their living conditions. I beg them not to be scared but to rejoice that change is near and that the light at the end of the tunnel IS in sight. Change is the only thing that can improve our economy, bring us out of debt, create jobs, and bring a stable and good life to middle-class citizens. For example: How can we end our dependence on foreign oil? We could start drilling for oil in American territories. Or we could research and resort to alternate fuel sources. What do you call this transition to dependence to independence? It's called "change." Heard of it before?
The United States of America should unilaterally disarm its nuclear arsenal

I am new to this site; this is my first debate on here ever, so if I do anything out of the ordinary, let me know. But for this debate, rounds 2 and 3 will be the constructives for each debater, and round 4 will be for rebuttals. Please DO NOT make any new arguments in round 4! New analysis is fine, new examples are fine, but NO arguments that are entirely new, and no new sources. I'm not sure if that's normal on this site, but obviously, if you make a new argument in the last round, I have no way of responding to it, so you could just save your best argument until the end and win outright. However, I will be allowed to address your new arguments from round 3 in my final round, and you will be permitted to attack my rebuttal there as well. By unilateral, I mean that our disarmament ought not be contingent upon the simultaneous disarmament of other nations. So if Russia is disarming as we disarm, that's fine and works with my argument, but they don't necessarily have to be. By disarm, I mean that the United States should pursue an eradication of warheads, however the specific time frame would be variable and unimportant to this debate. You can assume it would be reasonably spread out but not excessively dilatory.
Gardner's Multiple Intelligences vs General Intelligence Factor "g"

I've already said this in the comments. The winner for case 1 will be whoever loses more. There is no evidence for Gardner's theory AND for general intelligence factor. I'll show you why. Case 1: Gardner's theory is realI concede this. There is no evidence. However, I'll show you how Con won't have any evidence for his case 1 either. Case 2: General intelligence factor is not realI remind voters that for me to win this debate, I have to convince you that there is LESS reason to believe in GIF than MI (multiple intelligence/Gardner). Thus, I have to create a third case:Third case: MI is more convincing than GIF. I don't need to make case 2, Because I can just refute Con's case 1. My rebuttal of con's case 1, Is my case 2 as you'll see. So now my only case and argument is: MI is more convincing than GIFI'll start. Logically:P1) On balance, A neutral theory is more convincing than a theory with negative evidence. P2) There is evidence AGAINST GIF. There is no evidence against MI. Mi simply lacks evidence as it is so hard to measure. C) MI is more convincing than GIF. P1 is obvious. Notice I said it is more convincing. Not it is "better". I think the voter can agree this is fair to both parties. Now I have to prove P2. P2 is simple. I just have to provide negative evidence for GIF. To do this, I combine logic and statistic:GIF can't exist if different ability tests do not correlate. For example, If you're good at maths, You're good at solving puzzles. And :), This is EXACTLY what a group of researchers found. They conducted a study testing 100, 000 participants (which is a thousand times more than the standard) and gave them an ability test testing different cognitive skills: 1. Memory2. Reasoning3. Attention4. Planning"The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, The observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, Reasoning and a verbal component. " - (Adam Hampshire Study, Imperial college, Can't put a link it crashes DDO). They even went a step further and did brain scans and showed that different parts of the brain were responsible for short-term memory, Reasoning and verbalisation. But if you study neuroscience, You already know that. The point is that these things are independent and a person can have an advantage in one area than another. If you test only one aspect, And I fail, I could still be intelligent in another aspect. Thus GIF has negative evidence and is less convincing than MI. Thank you. Over to Con.
Gardner's Multiple Intelligences vs General Intelligence Factor "g"

Howard Gardner proposed his theory of multiple intelligences which suggests that there are many forms of mental abilities and that they are unrelated which leads to the conclusion that general intelligence does not exist. (Deary, 2001) Gardner proposed eight different "intelligences":1. Musical-rhythmic, 2. Visual-spatial, 3. Verbal-linguistic, 4. Logical-mathematical, 5. Bodily-kinesthetic, 6. Interpersonal, 7. Intrapersonal, 8. Naturalistic. (Slavin, 2009) I will be arguing that "g" general intelligence exists and accounts for a significant amount of the variability in cognitive ability in the general population and that Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences does not hold up. Meanwhile, My opponent will be arguing that no general intelligence factor exists and that Gardner's separate multiple intelligences do exist. Have fun arguing/reading the debate and please ensure that you use academic sources for fact-checking purposes (this should be considered while awarding the "sources" points. )
Resolved: An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is impossible. There will always be a problem - fixing one problem often necessarily leads to the creation of a different problem. " Perhaps my opponent is not quite grasping the concept of an ideal. An ideal form of NCLB would HAVE no problems; hence why it is ideal. I see no reason to consider an ideal form of NCLB impossible. An ideal form would take into account everything necessary, analyzing, balancing, and checking its flaws, in order to be the best conceivable plan there can be. A form of NCLB must only follows the original objective addressed of NCLB: "help improve the academic achievement of all American students. " "The United States is an irresponsible country. It doesn't follow environmental guidelines, it starts wars, it polices the world unnecessarily, and it unnecessarily polices the lives of its inhabitants (for instance, by stopping them from growing certain types of plants or from performing certain acts for money in private) etc. .. What the United States needs is to be pressed, to have its welfare reduced so much that it starts to actually question how it conducts itself in the world and domestically. Thus, any ideal plan would work against the United States rather than for it, whether this plan was a form of NCLB or not. " Again, an ideal form of NCLB would "help improve the academic achievement of all American students. " Thus, helping to improve the academic achievement of all American students, as the resolution implies, would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. Further, helping to improve the academic achievement of all American students would be promoting or enhancing the well-being of the well-being of the United States. I would like to point out that any of the irresponsible aspects of the United States as mentioned by my opponent focus on policy and ethical problems rather than education reform. The ethics and policy guidelines set by this nation are clear: a better education for future generations helps to improve world standing, sustainability, and a further understanding of learning and gathering of knowledge. The reverse, as suggested by my opponent, would, well, do the inverse of the goals for education in the United States. Even symbolically it would fail. There is little problem in ethicality regarding whether better education is indeed good. Thanks, and I await the next round of this debate.
Resolved: An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.

Greetings. Good luck to my opponent and gratitude to those reading this. I must negate the resolution. An ideal form of NCLB would NOT be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. My opponent correctly notes that ideal indicates perfection. An ideal form of NCLB would therefore be perfect, having no flaws. Ladies and gentlemen, this is impossible. There will always be a problem - fixing one problem often necessarily leads to the creation of a different problem. Real policies must perform a balancing act and decide which flaws are worth it and which are not - but that has nothing to do with this resolution. My opponent argues that an IDEAL form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the US. In being ideal, this hypothetical form of NCLB must necessarily have no flaws - else it would not be ideal. There is no policy that is both perfect and a form of NCLB. Since an ideal form does not exist (see above), it would not cause any changes in the welfare of the United States. Even so, let me move on to another argument. Anything that is ideal or perfect must only be helpful and not hurtful. My opponent has assumed, without backing himself up, that being beneficial to the welfare of the United States is a good thing. I negate this sentiment. The United States is an irresponsible country. It doesn't follow environmental guidelines, it starts wars, it polices the world unnecessarily, and it unnecessarily polices the lives of its inhabitants (for instance, by stopping them from growing certain types of plants or from performing certain acts for money in private) etc. Empowering the United States, being beneficial to its welfare, this would not signal change. What the United States needs is to be pressed, to have its welfare reduced so much that it starts to actually question how it conducts itself in the world and domestically. Thus, any ideal plan would work against the United States rather than for it, whether this plan was a form of NCLB or not. Being beneficial to the welfare of the United States is not a positive thing. It is detrimental, it is a flaw in a plan. It is not something that an ideal plan would do. Thus, if an ideal plan existed, it is certain that it would NOT be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.
Resolved: An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.

Greetings to my opponent, beem0r. And thanks to the judges and spectators enjoying this debate. I stand in affirmation of the addressed resolution: Resolved: An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. Definitions: Ideal – adjective - conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence. Beneficial – adjective - promoting or enhancing well-being. Welfare – noun - well-being. NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act) – proper noun – an act relating to education dealt with in 2001 in the United States of America. See the link immediately below for further detail. The goal of NCLB was to "help improve the academic achievement of all American students." http://www.ed.gov... The main objective of NCLB as addressed above is the most intrinsic part of what it means for something to be considered "NCLB." An ideal form of NCLB would, as defined, work by "conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence." Given that nothing is better than perfection in educational regards, it is logical to assume that such an ideal form would be the BEST form theoretically possible, under the account of all possible incorporated variables. As well, obviously, the goal would be fulfilled in its entirety, which must be a good/beneficial thing. The reason an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial? Increased education in the United States and improvement of academic achievement for all American students would boost the standing and reputation of the nation in the world, help to promote the health and prosperity of the country, and assist the exploration of the scientific frontier. As well, increased education leads to an increased understanding of logical concepts, allowing one to think critically. Logical thinking is beneficial to the welfare of the United States, given that it promotes fundamental values that are vital to the well-being of the United States. In such regards, an ideal form of NCLB would indeed be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. Good luck to my opponent in this debate, and may the most logical argument compellingly prevail. Oboeman.