BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should the Nhs treat self inflicted illnesses

I agree that all are worthy of assistance, however if they knowingly caused the reason for which they require the assistance then should they really be given this assistance. Alot of people seem to go for the Pro argument but i am curious as to why? To me its like telling a someone fire is dangerous and warning them not to place their hands in fire, however the the perso ignores the warning and still puts their hand in the fire and gets burnt. But they know that they will get free and quality treatment for the burn so they will not hesitate to commit the act again. Rubbish analogy, i know. but thats the way i see it. the nhs give free treatment at the moment and i think that people take it for granted. And yes i am from the United knigdom
should the Nhs treat self inflicted illnesses

Should the NHS use up valuable resources to treat self inflicted illness? by self inflicted i mean those that are obese or have lung cancer due to excessive smoking or may have liver cirrhosis due to alcholism. these people have been warned according to the government that their lifestyle will lead to bad consequences yet they still continue with this poor lifestyle and expect treatment when things go haywire. however there are people out there whose illesses are not of their fault who arent getting the best that they can because of the compromises that the NHS has to make at times. i think that the NHS should make those with self inflicted illnesses pay for their treatment. It cost the NHS tons of money annually to deal with these cases.
Affirmative Action

First off, I think there should be a common definition on what Affirmative Action is: "A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination between applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future." <http://www.law.cornell.edu...; Secondly, I would like to address the issues of Affirmative Action (AA). 1. AA leads to reverse discrimination, and instead of erasing discrimination among Minorities, creates discrimination among Majorities. 2. AA is tough to remove, once passed. If people were to eventually change their ideals in a state that supports AA, it would be difficult to remove. 3. It tells Minorities that the only way to succeed is by using benefits such as AA, when true success comes from hard work and patience. 4. Students admitted into a school by AA are often unprepared for the school which they have been admitted to. Consider the following: A Minority and a Majority both take an exam to be admitted into a college. -The Minority scores higher than the Majority. Obviously, the Minority will be the one admitted. -The Minority and the Majority both score the exact same. Most likely, the Minority will be the one admitted. -The Majority scores higher than the Minority. Sadly, there is still a pretty good chance for the Minority to be the one admitted. This is my first debate, so bring it on!!
Resolved: K-Pop is superior to American Pop Music.

Kpop in general is something that cannot compare to american pop culture While pop culture can be over used they have a variety of lyrics and styles that kpop doesn't offer. We see ranges from ariana grande to one direction, all the way to fun. Some of the vocals are amazing and perfect. Like ariana grande for one is a new artist that took the pop scene by storm. She has amazing vocals, that even rival mariah carey. If you compare this to kpop you do not see the same vocals and talent with kpop and its culture. It's often less vocally skilled and does not require the range some of the modern pop genre requires For example Problems , check out the range on this song with the vocals. http://www.youtube.com...
The trans-movement and thr logic behind it.

Trans movement. What is the trans movement? An article in The Guardian, written by Rodrigo Lehtinen, defines it as the movement (not necessarily only by trans people) to improve conditions for and treatment of trans members of society. I'm not too sure how to reply to your argument (is it one?) so I'll help to provide some background information. It is undeniable that transgender people are heavily discriminated against. Referring to the same Guardian article as above, I quote: "One of the biggest issues is discrimination, which holds transgender people back in a myriad of ways, primary among them being in employment. It's shocking to learn that transgender people are nearly four times more likely than the general population to make less than $10,000 a year, according to Injustice At Every Turn (pdf), the largest study ever conducted on transgender people in the US. This is due in large part to public attitudes. Transgender people are often denied jobs or promotions, keeping us on the bottom of the economic ladder. There's no federal law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, and only 16 states have stepped up to fill the void. That leaves 34 states where it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being transgender." Statistically, transgender people are also not well-provided for in the legal realms, especially when it comes to justice. Police officers often assume transgender workers to be sex workers and in fact, because of the reality where trans workers are unable to find proper employment and they are forced in many circumstances to turn to prostitution or placed into other similarly poor conditions. Truly, the logic behind most movements is to bring about change that the organisers sincerely believe is needed in society. Likewise, according to Wikipedia, the trans movement wants to promote transgender rights and to eliminate discrimination and violence against transgender people regarding housing, employment, public accommodations, education, and healthcare. In some jurisdictions, transgender activism seeks to allow changes to identification documents to conform to a person's current gender identity. On a side note, if you have queries about the reasons behind becoming trans, here's your answer. Gender identity and sex are two completely different concepts. One tackles the idea of what "gender" you are assigned, based on societal influences and pressures, while the other refers simply to the reproductive organs you have. I say "have", because GRS (gender reassignment surgery) exists, and to a certain extent are useable, though not to the extent where gametes of the changed sex can be produced.
World Peace In Prehistory (5)

I doubt that my knowledge of history is on par with that of the likes of you, however i feel that this daunting task is not an impossible one and therefore i must try my hand in this endeavor. I am new to the rules and regulations of debates, so i am apologizing in advance if i post jargon in an inappropriate stage of the debate. I have no questions for the instigator at this point, however i will like to make a few opening points. I argue that it was not the development of agricutre that lead to the wars (by your definition) rather then a large variety of influences most notably the development settlements of people such as villages(most likely started as hamlets) to satisfy the basic need of security (security being the most important need after the essential basics such as food,water,sleep,excretion ect). Thus when populations grew and the essential need of food could not be satisfied by the status quo of hunting and gathering, people turn to a practice that has been in place for quite some time before the development of sizable population centers, the further domestication of animals and agriculture (agriculture was in practice much during the period where hunter-gathers roamed freely, but agriculture practices did not flourish during this time due to the large amount of labor required for a less then minimum return, it was also preferable to eat meat because at during this time because much of the foods such as milk were an acquired taste). So the expansion of agriculture was actually a product of satisfying the need of security, in turn caused other groups of people to unify for their own security in turn leading established villages to feel threaten and tempted to weaken the state of the rivaling villages by means of violence before the rivaling village could prove to be a immediate threat to the already established village. For this is human nature, the general mistrust of anything that could be perceived as potentially threatening to the security of not only of them selves but as their way of life as well. It is this mistrust that helps fuel the war machine that allows for excess moneys to be invested into war, it is that of human nature that ambitious men rise up and often bring war, it is this that of human nature that we seek new ways to kill those who are seen as a threat. Agriculture is not the soul of the expansion of wars, it was the byproduct of the need of security which lead to war. Fueled by among other things, human nature.
World Peace In Prehistory (5)

Con posted the wrong argument so I will only use this round as conclusion, while if Con wants, will be able to make her argument for round 3. Conclusion: After the development of agriculture, man was able to diverge from being purely focused on finding food. Because of this, many things happened, which lead to warfare and conquest. The idea of ownership, population pressure and need for expansion, greed, and addiction luxury, and social and racial indifference, all led to deadly wars. The ability to develop specialization of labor, and focus and weaponry also contributed to the after math of wars. All these causes are a byproduct of the development of agriculture; therefore, they were non-existent in pre-agriculture/hunter gather times. If the sense that is was in absents of war, hunter and gather times where more peaceful, worldwide. Evidence from my argument suggest that "Life was better in pre-agriculture times and [was absent from] large scale wars and fights (of humans killing other humans)"; I have proved my original assertion.
Reproductive cloning on animals

Con has forfeited the final round. Therefore, I extend all rebuttals that remain unchallenged. In this round I will respond to the rebuttals Con raised in R2, and then conclude. I. Increase in food productionCon drops this argument. II. Spares species from ExtinctionCon drops this argument. III. Disease Resistant OrganismsCon rebuts this by stating that mutations can cause results such as more aggressive animals. However, with modern technology, we are able to isolate certain genes that will serve to be beneficial mutations rather than negative ones. I already gave evidence of this with source [4] in my first round, which Con seemed to ignore completely. With control over the gene selection and therefore the mutations themselves, we run no risk of allowing negative mutations to occur, thus this potential risk is ultimately a non-issue. In closing, I've shown several benefits, none of which Con was able to overcome. Con also forfeited the final round.
Reproductive cloning on animals

In this round I will be providing rebuttals to the arguments raised by Con in R1. RebuttalsCan lead to horrible situationsThis is just an opinion, not a fact. If Con wishes to prove this point, then Con needs to provide evidence supporting the claim - as it stands now it's nothing more than an opinion with no supporting evidence. I've already given evidence showing the benefits of this technology. Mutations - faster reproductionCon claims that faster reproduction for animals facing extinction is a step in the wrong direction, but why? For Con, it's because it'll lead to mutations for humans which would create super humans with advantages over others. Again, why is that a bad thing? If anything, that would be beneficial in wars, giving us a clear advantage over our enemies. Con ends by saying that it'll make the impossible possible - but gives no reason as to why that's a bad thing. Ultimately, Con lacks any and all evidence for these claims. They are nothing but unsupported opinions.
Reproductive cloning on animals

I am going with the worst possible outcome on your statement 3. I therefore can show you how bad the outcome could result into. As you have said, we could make sure we have enough food with this method, probably for the rest of our existence. I am not here to cause chaos, but we have to keep in mind there are some clear things which can go horribly wrong with this method. While testing the reproductive cloning on animals, there are multiple things which can go wrong. Whenever mutations are applied to animals, to create a stronger offspring, these mutations could result into more things. For example, Mutations can cause some animals to being more aggressive, because there is something not right in them. These mutations will reproduce. This could cause, that some predators of this specific species, could result into getting extinct. Do we really want to continuously make more animals, because their prey is mutated in such a way that it isn't the predator's prey anymore? I don't think so
Reproductive cloning on animals

Greetings, I believe reproductive cloning is beneficial and will show how throughout this debate. ArgumentsI. Increase in food productionWith an increase in population comes an increase in food demand [1]. Reproductive cloning allows for an increase in the population of animals we use as food sources, thus alleviating the pressures of an increased food demand. II. Spares species from ExtinctionWith reproductive cloning we can save species from our increasing extinction rate issues [2] by storing their genetic material for future cloning [3].III. Disease Resistant OrganismsThrough reproductive cloning we can create stronger offspring of animals that are resistant to common diseases [4]. A healthier food source means a healthier population. Sources[1] http://www.usda.gov...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.nationalgeographic.com...[4] http://www.nature.com...
Reproductive cloning on animals

In my eyes, the continued research on reproductive cloning is irresponsible. As we have seen in the past, War can conclude into disastrous events. I think the continuing research on reproductive cloning, even on animals can lead to horrible situations. I have researched a bit onto the reproductive cloning, and I saw that scientists are already trying to invent mutations, so that the animals ,which are almost extinct, are able to reproduce faster. I think this is a big step in the wrong direction. The fact that animals can be mutated, means that in the wrong hands, also human could be mutated the same way. In war, this leads to scientists making the new, what I call, "Super human". This humanoid organism is then manipulated in such way, that it has some clear advantages to other humans. For example, I have read a thread in which I read that the research on Vectors to use Gene therapy with, can also be used in embryos. This, together with cloning makes the impossible could be possible.
dress code

The dress code is there for a reason. A major reason that the dress code exists is so that kids who are poorer, or can't spend money on big name brands, don't feel bad about not being able to do so. Even if the children go to an expensive private school, they could be there on a scholarship and if they are unable to purchase clothing from big name brands such as Nike or Under Armour, they may feel left out because people will easily realize that they do not have as much money as everyone else. While with a dress code, all this information can be kept confidential and people will not feel bad about their money situation. Aside from that fact; if students were able to wear whatever they wanted they could wear "distracting" items of clothing. Such as skirts that are to short, or a shirt that exposes to much of their chest. Or they could wear simply nothing at all. Not only would that repel people from the school, but it would not be pleasant to others in the class room. It would also give the school a bad image.
Blitz debate. Gay Marriage

Pro's claim was that gay marriage does not have a harmful effect on American society. Feel free to refer back to me previous links and/or argument.You're statement "No, VIOLENCE is spreading throughout the world." does not disprove that gay marriage and gay rights protests do not cause violence. Your blatant and extremely broad statement implies that violence is a result without a cause. For example, your statement would have made more sense if you said somewhere along the lines of this: "No, VIOLENCE is spreading throughout the world because of or as a result of...". Gay rights protests (not all) can and certainly could become violent (see links provided in previous argument).From your link (http://www.nizkor.org...): The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. By linking this, I see that you greatly misunderstood what I said. I'm not using the "Slippery Slope" fallacy because I never (and never will) claim that all gay rights protests inevitably end in violence, but rather claim that they can cause violence, thus causing harm on not only American society, but all around the world as well. P.S.Gay marriage causes tensions between Pro and Anti gay marriage activists. Tensions between said activists lead to gay rights protests (not anti gay rights protests because majority of the issue [average of past 10 years] support anti gay marriage, numbers will be below). Gay rights protests lead to even more tensions, some of which can become hostile and violent.Average Pro Gay Marriage: 43%Average Anti Gay Marriage: 52.5%http://www.pollingreport.com... (2nd from top, nation wide poll over the past 10 years)
Blitz debate. Gay Marriage

The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" - Primary definition of "Marriage according to Webster Dictionaryhttp://www.lgbtqnation.com......^ Gay rights parade goes extremely violent in Serbia.http://www.rferl.org......^ Shameful gay rights parade goes violent as said by Croatian leaders.Violence in gay rights parades are spreading throughout the world, and ought to be prevented before spreading to America.No, VIOLENCE is spreading throughtout the world. and nothing is stopping the raids from happening. Like are you really going to imprison every gay, just to stop the protest? Why would gays just say "OH! I CANT PROTEST! $%!+!".http://www.nizkor.org...http://www.nizkor.org...Theres alot of rights movements that had riots. One being the African-American raids on Detroit. It can be said that White=black thoughts to be true.
Blitz debate. Gay Marriage

"The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" - Primary definition of "Marriage according to Webster Dictionaryhttp://www.lgbtqnation.com...^ Gay rights parade goes extremely violent in Serbia.http://www.rferl.org...^ Shameful gay rights parade goes violent as said by Croatian leaders.Violence in gay rights parades are spreading throughout the world, and ought to be prevented before spreading to America.
I'm Pro-Life | Change my mind

Firstly, It is murder. Even if it's not illegal at the time, It's practically murder. You're killing another human being. "I will agree that abortion is killing babies" - You just admitted that abortion is killing another human. I won't even bother to read the rest of that paragraph. "Raising a child is not easy" - Obviously not. It takes time and effort. But maybe they should've thought about that before having unprotected sex. Let's not forget, Adoption is an option. Why kill a child when they can be raised into something? "Furthermore, The world's population is getting out of hand. " - That's semi-true. This doesn't give any excuse to kill another human, Though. "And then there was rape" - Adoption. All that needs to be said.
I'm Pro-Life | Change my mind

"Wouldn't that be pure murder? " It depends on how you look at it. Quite frankly, It isn't murder, Otherwise abortion would be illegal. At the moment, Babies aren't fully considered human while they are still in the womb. Therefore they don't have all the rights that a fully grown adult has. This includes the basic human right to life. I suppose you also think babies should be allowed to vote? I will agree that abortion is killing babies, Because that's what it is. I also don't like the idea of abortion over other forms of birth control. However sometimes that's what it comes to. I'm not saying that everyone should just stop buying condoms and sit back letting taxes pay for abortions, That's not enjoyable for anyone, Including the person getting the abortion (especially the person getting the abortion). If you think about it, The kind of person who gets an abortion is not really someone that you want to raise a child. If baby murder is so bad, Why would you prefer that these "murderers" have children? Raising a child is not easy, And if someone's life is complete dog shitt, Their child would have a terrible life. Do you really want children getting raised by meth addicted prostitutes? I understand that doesn't apply to everyone who gets an abortion, But you have to realize that people aren't just doing this for convenience. It's actually a million times more inconvenient than a condom or birth control pill. If someone is getting an abortion, It's safe to say that their life isn't going so perfect in the first place. It's likely that they live in a shitty house, In a run down neighborhood, In a town with a high crime rate. But oh yes, Let's put more children in that place! You hear how stupid that sounds? How unfair to the child. Furthermore, The world's population is getting out of hand. We humans need to take it easy otherwise there just won't be enough of anything (I understand that supply and demand will come into play but that doesn't change my point). There are over 7. 4 billion people on earth as of 2016 and that is no small number. The only species' with a bigger population than humans are various birds, Insects and arachnids, And single celled organisms. Also krill and various fish species (keep in mind that they spawn on a massive level). "Most contemporary estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, Human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred. Nevertheless, The rapid recent increase in human population is causing some concern. " -- That is directly from Google. Again, I don't think abortion is a better choice than any other form of birth control, But like I said, Sometimes that's what it comes to. "Abortion is the last line of defense against shitty people in the species. " - Luis C. K. And it's the truth. And then there was rape. . . Oh how I would love to force a rape victim to raise the child of a true monster. Not. Most anti abortion people believe that in the case of rape, Abortion is okay. What do you think?
Global warming doesn't exist

To your argument of "90% of the ice in the world is actually growing" you do not provide a source. So how do I know if you are telling the truth? I on the other hand will provide you a source right now: http://www.sciencedaily.com... I would also like to say that : • Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. • The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... You can click on that link for more information. Furthermore the sun's life time is about 10 billion years. Differences in a couple hundred years are not noticeable to us: as you said, the increase has been .5 celsius, but, as I said, the rate is increasing. So, vote con. Thank you.