BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal testing does more harm than good

Hello once again, this is Forever 23 and I am here to state that animals testing does more harm than good. My roadmap will include, first nullifying my opponents points and then restating 3 of my own points and finally adding another of the props points into the debate. My opponents first points was that animal testing has helped in human advances in science, biology and technology. But I disagree, "Let's say that it's true, that animals were indispensable to the discovery of insulin," says Neal Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal-protection group. "That was a long time ago. I think to say, 'It was done this way and there's no other way it could have been done' is a bit of a leap of faith, but let's say that at the time there was no other way." Currently, there may be many ways to achieve something in the field of medicine, but we are just ignoring it. Their second assertion is that there is no other option. However, I disagree, there are so many. According to Medical Research Modernization Committee, data collected from animal experimentation are almost always redundant and unnecessary, frequently misleading, and by their very nature unlikely to provide reliable information about humans and their diseases. "Animal 'models' are, at best, analogous to human conditions," the authors wrote, "but no theory can be refuted or proved by analogy. Thus, it makes no logical sense to test a theory about humans using animals." However, the computer models that help scientists are very accurate. They are a great alternative to animals testing. Now let me restate my sides assertions: 1. Animal testing may mislead researchers to ignore potential cures and treatments. 2. It is cruel and inhumane. 3. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Now onto introducing a new assertion. My fourth assertion is that animal testing creates a dangerous interpretation of the value of life. Allowing prospective determine value allows the human mind to justify killing and genetic mutation. What we do to animals is the laboratories is unethical and immoral. Everyday, the animals go through unimaginable pain. Then, they are brutally killed. We must protect the rights of animals, in order to ensure a good, healthy society.According to USDA, in 2006 about 670000 animals, not including rats and mice were used in procedures which included only momentary pain or distress. 420000 were used in procedures needing anesthesia. 84000 were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would never be relieved. Now, we are killing animals. Believe it or not, instead of animals, we will soon be using humans. By killing animals in the labs, we are implying that life has no meaning to us. It insinuates that murdering is fine and there will be no punishment for wasting the life of an animal. Thank you, please vote proposition
Animal testing does more harm than good

First I'd like to point out that human advances in science, biology and technology would not be possible without tests being conducted. Experiments are one of the essential parts of the scientific procedure, and is the framework of research. It basically confirms whether or not a hypothesis is valid and determines the path to scientific success. If humans did not conduct experiments, we would be centuries away from where we are now. It would be impossible to prove and confirm data or even to obtain it. Yes, these are the traits of experiments in general, but considering the developments in health, medicine and other sciences of biology, it would be necessary to conduct tests on lower organisms, before it is transferred to humans. What else would we test on? Some biological animal systems react differently to products than humans, but does that mean my opponent is suggesting that we test experiments on humans? Yes, their is some animal cruelty in some animal experimentation's, however; experimenting on humans would be even more cruel. That would be even more inhumane and even more expensive not to mention preposterous. My opponent says that the government is "wasting" its money on animal testing, however; every penny, that they are using is one step closer to achieving success. All the money the government is using is worth it, whether they are experimenting on disease cures, limb transfers or organ replacements. Yes, some of these experiments are not successful, however; not everything is. All scientists can do is keep trying, with different strategies. Yes, this progress is slow, but even my opponent can admit in his/her sources, that even through the millions of dollars being spent, human advances are slowly obtaining its goals through animal experimentation. Testing on animals in order to obtain upgrades in health, makes these treatments humane, because it is helping the survival of human society.
Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US military

My opponent contended in a previous debate that Muslims should be banned from serving in the US military. For some reason, he insists that I challenge him instead of the other way around, so here it is.A Muslim is someone who follows the Islamic faith.The US military is defined as the military forces of the United States, including the Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Air Force and National Guard. The burden of proof is on my opponent as he's the one advocating a change in the status quo. My opponent will present his case in the first round, and will not post an argument in the final round so that we both have an equal amount of space to debate. No new arguments in either last round. Good luck.
Murder is Okay under all circumstances

I will summarize what my opponent just argued for the sake of myself and voters:Basically my opponent seems to be arguing that because many lives can be saved through someone dying and thus having their organs donated to multiple people who need them, that this justifies the fact someone murdered that person. Now, I will point out the problems with this argument:1) I believe intent and motive matter a lot when it comes to the actions of a criminal. The law would say otherwise of course, it doesn't matter your intent or motive usually(as long as you had a motive), you'll still be punished by our justice system. At any case, I would still argue that intent matters because this indicates whether the action was done out of malice, and thus is an act of evil, or if it was done with a good intent, and thus an evil act like murdering someone may seem to be justifiable. I personally don't believe that murderers are thinking about the greater good when they murder someone. Are murderers really thinking about how when they kill someone, their organs might go to people who need them? Even if they are, was that the motivation behind the murder? If it wasn't the motivation behind the murder, it becomes harder to argue that the murder was okay. I believe most people murder people out of selfish reasons: such as they extremely disliked the person, they needed the person to die in order to benefit themselves in some way, etc. My opponent should need to show that majority of murderers have the motivation to kill people in order to help others get the organs they need, if they were to make that argument. The fact that there is a positive side effect to the murder of that person, doesn't change the fact that someone did it with malice or evil intent. 2) Actively killing someone who has nothing to do with the suffering of another, even if it benefits other people, I would argue is still immoral. It is certainly unfortunate that there are people out there who end up dying because of a shortage of organs, but nonetheless, they are not entitled to those organs. I believe many of us would agree that murdering someone who is actively making other people suffer is justifiable, but it is not justifiable to murder someone who has nothing to do with the suffering of others, even if it would help end the suffering of those people. 3) There can be better alternatives to solving the issue of organ shortages. Artificial organs are being developed[1], and once they are, then there likely won't be a shortage of organs. It would be a better solution to work towards developing these artificial organs, than to allow people to murder other people in order to get organs. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Murder is Okay under all circumstances

I have a feeling I have no idea what I just got myself into, because you seem very confident of yourself. We'll see how this plays out. I sometimes do concede debates, but I don't see myself conceding this one. Now, to answer your questions:1) I do think that the lives of many outweigh the lives of the few, but I would like to state that in the case that in order to protect the lives of many we have to kill a few people, or let a few people die, I would argue that there literally has to be no other way and all other possibilities are completely impossible. If there is the slimmest chance something else could save all of the people, and that there is still time to try something else if it fails, it should be tried. Additionally, if we determine that literally nothing else has a chance at saving everyone, then we should take volunteers first who would willingly give up their lives for the many. And if there is not enough of those who will volunteer, then we could take undesirables, such as death row inmates and have them sacrificed for the many. They were going to be killed either way, might as well use their deaths for something good. 2) I'm not sure if you want evidence of most people believing that the lives of many outweigh the lives of a few. I don't have such evidence and I'm not sure if any survey or scientific experiment has been done to determine this, but I personally think most people believe this as well. It's only logical.
Murder is Okay under all circumstances

I will argue that murder is okay under all circumstances Murder definition: the premeditated killing of one human being by another. Rules: Con must answer the following two questions in round 1 otherwise the debate will not continue and I win 1) Do you think the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few? 2) Do most people believe the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few? Good luck Con, I look forward to having this debate
Likability Verses Capability

I think that you have to be one of the coolest people in I've ever met. I have a condition that you might not be accustomed to, but because of your bravery and kindness, I wish to share who I truly am. Now it's the time to see if you can walk into my shoes. Thank you for this, you truly are extraordinary. You did not run away from the coldness that I bring, instead you tried to warm it with your heart. I wish you know that my heart is never cold, but only my mind. So how long can you hold your breath? Is it not for as long as you need to? So then, how long can you hold your persistence? How long should I stand my ground? Logic is absolute, it is never wrong, only those who interpret may be mistaken. Can beauty not be logical? Do we not function as many parts in a machine? How many pedals on a flower can ever feel the light? Cannot logic give these answers? If a blind man told you were beautiful, would you say, "How do you know what beautiful is? You cannot see any colors. " Do you think you could see his heart with all the colors you could see? If you act upon what you know and you don't know, then how could you ever do wrong? Your intent is as plain as eggshell white, so who am I to tell you to change? I shall digress for once I could see and now I am blind. Let your beauty shine through for I no longer need to stand. Lastly, I am but two sides of the same coin. I'm so happy that I was able to express myself the way that I've always wanted. Thank you for this experience. . http://www.debate.org...
Likability Verses Capability

I appreciate you reminding me of my lack of clarity, for it is something I forget and need to be caution of. As much as I appreciate the clarity, rather than opposing my argument, like an opponent is intended to do, I feel like you were essentially just clarifying my argument and presenting it as if it were your own. I want you to disagree with me, but you're disagreeing with someone I'm not and didn't even present myself to be. You're arguing with statements I didn't state, for one, and secondly, you're misinterpreting statements with little to no room for misinterpretation by misreading them altogether. I don't think this was intentional, so if I may bring this to your attention, everyone can return to their lane, and we can have the amazing race we were meant to have. I want you to know I did not insinuate that either Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera weren't kind but that Britney is (statistically) more likable and is more popular because of that. I would never classify someone as "not kind," let alone Britney Spears, who you, if you read back, will see that I actually was using as an example of someone who's very kind, as oppose to someone who is not kind, like I was needlessly accused of. The question I posed wasn't which subject has a chance at success but which subject has more of a chance, meaning which ability is more likely to succeed in workplaces, and I didn't say some workplaces because I meant which subject has more of a chance in any workplace. My argument was specifically a generation, and the debate is whether the generation is accurate or not, with my argument claiming so. Considering I never stated that one can only be successful through kindness but that they have a better chance at success, that would be accusation number two. We're defining kindness as likable, like it was stated in the title, and we're defining success as the dictionary would define it, which would be as "the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted. " [1] If I were to, say, invite you to a restaurant that requires you to bring your own silverware, but you only have room in your tote bag for one utensil, you'd probably pack a fork, because a fork has a better chance at being successful at any given restaurant, just as I believe likability has a better chance at being successful (than capability) in any given workplace, because, just as forks are more reliant upon for dinning than spoons or knives, likability is more reliant upon for contribution than capability, because, regardless of how incredibly well you can do something for people, if you can only do it with a poor attitude, most people wouldn't want you to do it for them at all, which is how bad service results in no service. I can't say I was expecting to use round two to elaborate on what was intended to be concise in round one, but that's why we have round three. I look forward to debating the context of my argument, this time, more than the delivery of it. Thank you in advance. Good luck! Resource(s): [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Likability Verses Capability

Thank you very much for this opportunity to debate. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new evidence or information based on reason and logic. I am truly sorry to point this out, but you didn't word your argument correctly. You didn't limit the number of workplaces, which implies that you are only successful if you are kind in all workplaces. If you said "(in some workplaces)" then I would not disagree with you. CEOs of companies are not kind. I suppose that could be biased, but considering that most of them are sociopaths(that's a provable concept which I hope you can concede to), that would indicate they would not be under your definition of being kind. I can say that because of your implication that Brittany is not kind. I will say that people with kindness(whatever your definition is fine) CAN be more successful in SOME workplaces using your argument. Success is a subjective term as well. How do you define it? Success can range from financial superiority all the way to moral superiority(not mutually exclusive). All what I am saying in regards to superiority is "success" implies you got better at something. Superiority implies you are better than something or someone. If you got better at something, that implies that you are better than something. I'm a very literal man. It's the only way I can be moral. Good luck to you, and may I say I'm very happy that you choose to look at the glass half full. I am beginning my journey in this world and I am an advocate that kindness can lead to being far stronger and more successful than greed, apathy, and selfishness. My only advice if I may; it's not always about if the glass is half full or half empty, sometimes it's about what the glass is half full of or what is the other half lacking. I find that life can be fulfilling with this perspective. If you see more, then you can know more. If you can know more, then you can feel more. If you can feel more, then you can empathize more. If you can empathize more, then you will know of a power that not even the most educated people in the world can overcome. And I finally did prove that(logically of course, no this isn't it, this is still just conception).
Likability Verses Capability

This debate is whether success relies more on an individual's heart or brain. I can tell you why kind people have a better chance at success (in workplaces) than skilled people, and you can tell me why they don't. It doesn't matter how well you can work for people, if you don't know how to work with people. I'm a lifelong Christina Aguilera fan, and although Xtina is more capable than Britney Spears, [1] she's not as likable, and she's not as popular. [2] Resource(s): [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Artistry/Voice) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Introduction) Make the best debater win.
New amendment to take the others away for a certain time of time for the good of the people

I Feel that the United States of America should have a new amendment to the Constitution. The reason why is because radical Islamic terrorists, such as Isis are using the news as a form of recruitment they want their stories on the news that is there whole campaign and strategy in getting what they want. and also for the 2nd amendment for example citizens could not purchase or carry firearms in places of where a suspected terror event will happen or if a riot is forming. Lastly if a Killer or a terrorist was hiding so that the police or FBI could not find him the police would not need a search warrant to look in a non criminal property for a criminal these would also go into effect for how big they would be if it was something small the city would decide to use the power of this amendment if it was large like a riot a state might want to use the amendment if it is large like shutting down news stories the united states president or someone of that power should put the amendment to action.
New amendment to take the others away for a certain time of time for the good of the people

What you are suggesting with your rebuttal is that the new amendment would be to turn this country into a dictatorship with unlimited power which is completely and utterly what i am not suggesting. it will be the peoples choice to start the question of weather or not to suspend the rights of some individuals temporarily, and the government to approve of it. so if the reason why a right is being temporarily infringed is due to your example of a reporter reporting on a government people would have to vote to have that person to stop talking about that subject, think of it like a report button on this website or any other the government doesn't automatically do it people have to flag or vote in order for the government to decide weather or not to take into consideration of shutting their right temporarily. people complain all the time on social media, games, etc. about admins and they don't get banned because no one flags them. lets say 20% of a people are going to get weapons to start an armed riot, the civilians do not want the riot so they start a vote to stop the 2nd amendment for all the people in the city until the threat of a riot is over.
Rap Battle!!!

[Round 3]You lacking rap semantics, forcing[1] bars gymnastic, barbaric[2] antics punchlines basicLets face it: “yo mamma's premenstrual rag?”[3] you into weird sh1t, faaggotThis is madness! I'm versus a talking shadow[4] this must be the matrixI'm Heisenberg[5] of rap true chemist[6]: I am “Al--G--brah”[7] like ElvisA pessimistic[8] black man how classic! Can't KISS[9] any chicks with that fat lip[10]No girls want the lookalike of Uncle Ruckus[11] unless they're Precious[12] and brainlessZero personals with low self-esteem, can't get girls so going after other people's dreams[13]The real King had a positive speech, this one flew to America—hello Prince Akeem! [14]Nah, this one isn't the supreme, suckin' the whole DDO team, sslut change name to ShadowQueenI am Corrales[15] 1 swing translate: fat lip, black eye “He's black though!” Oh wait!You Pac? He was an affiliate, Black Panther[16] dumb@ss get your facts straight!SK a vampire there's no excuse for sucking faaggot juice our IQ reduced from sh1t bars yo producedYou lose: with 3 rounds of snooze, we're not on the same plateau, you pseudo[17] I'm real thoughYou have no reflection no Shadow so how are you King, but no image to follow[18]This is how to backhand a hoe, discipline TrollGod is the new kingpin!If you win, the judges sinned, I've been whoopin' your @ss since round 1 began!!! [1]-Force = http://onlineslangdictionary.com... [2]-SK's round 3: “King's barbarity” [3]-SK's round 3: “yo mamma's premenstrual rag” [4]-ShadowKing name flip. He's only a 'shadow' so for him to be talking is impossible. [5]-http://breakingbad.wikia.com... [6]-SK's round 3: “they love me Chemistry”and how Heisenberg was a Chemist [7]-SK's round 3: “Nobody likes you Algebra” rebuttal: to be a G means to be 'gangster.' “Al—G—Bra” sounds like 'Al—ge—bra.' I'm saying: I am “A G(angster) brah.” Brah = bro. It's a slang [8]-http://www.debate.org... [9]-http://en.wikipedia.org...(band) [10]-http://static.entertainmentwise.com... [11]-http://www.imdb.com... [12]-http://www.imdb.com... [13]-SK's round 3: “I'm Pac...popped yo Jada” after 2nd round I said: “I am Legend Will Smith” [14]-http://www.imdb.com... [15]-http://en.wikipedia.org... SK's round 3: “You lightweight” Corrales is a Lightweight Boxing Champion [16]-http://en.wikipedia.org... Pac reflected Black Panther in his songs. SK's 2nd round: “How the fhuck am I rappin' Pro-Black Empowerment” and his 3rd round: “I'm Pac” contradicts his 2nd round. [17]-SK's profile: non-stereotypical black guy. He wore a chain in his picture. The stereotypical black man wears a chain too. I'm calling him fake while I am real. [18]-http://en.wikipedia.org.... Shadow_King name flip