BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
drug testing on humans and animals

Yes, by testing on animals it sometimes helps human diseases and other illnesses: however animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings.94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates.In a 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. Another study in 2013,study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety."
drug testing on humans and animals

Yes, people do test on these animals by the ways you described. It does hurt the patient at sometimes, but without testing upon these animals or humans, we are letting millions of people die because there is no such cure to stop it. This doesn't just effect the human population, scientist also drug test on animal diseases. For example, rabies was a nasty disease that effected much of the animal population. Through experiments and tests on animals, scientist found a cure to prevent this disease. By doing this, thousand of lives of animals have been saved. Rabies is not just the only disease to be cured; diseases such as distemper, tentanus, rabies and hundred of others have been cured. In order to cure a disease, you have to understand how it is caused and all the phases. When you understand this, you begin making a hypothesis. The only way to know if this theory works, you must experiment. The only way to experiment is to do it upon a live organism. It may be unethical to some people, but this is the only way we can save lives.
drug testing on humans and animals

In the animals and the peoples' defense, the participation of humans and animals being drug tested is not appropriate. For the first point animals being tested is act of being cruel and inhumane.According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment.
drug testing on humans and animals

Drug testing on humans in animals is considered inhuman or not appropriate to be done. People tend to frown upon drug testing because they are afraid of the harm it may do to the one being tested upon. drug testing is the foundation to most of our cures in this world. Many of the cures we have today is based off of drug testing. Everything we know in science comes from drug testing. The patients tested upon do not do it in vein, it is to help for the future cures for the uncured diseases.
polygamy is more natural than monogamy

polygamy is more natural than monogamy polygamy is more widely practiced in human society now and historically, so that is an indicator, given we are part of the natural world. polygamy is by far most widely practiced in the animal kingdom, even with closely related primates. they did a study on primates, and concluded that the wider a species shoulder, the more polygamous that species is. humans are on the conservative, but polygamous side of things.
atomic butterflies exist on mars

-I do have to admit. . the vid may have done better in this round. .. - -My opponent states "Butterflies cannot be atomic. A butterfly, according to biochemistry, is necessarily made up of molecules that are not in the state of separate atoms. Anything in the state of separate atoms i. e. unbonded and not molecular cannot be a butterfly. "- -Just because the atoms are seperated does not mean they are not the atoms of a buttterfly, it only means that the atoms are scatterd but those atoms together would just show the full butterfly in a way we can see. - -"Anything that is atomic cannot exist. According to biochemistry, anything that is in a free atomic state cannot be alive and/or have the functions of vitality. "- -So based on what your saying here. . Atoms. . and anything that is not alive. . do not exist? That is just insanity. - -"It is quite impossible for something to exist on anything. Life and/or the functions of vitality cannot be in opposition to something, especially an archaic Roman god that is not proven to be. " -Since when did it become impossible for something to exist on something? we exist on earth. . roman gods cannot be proven to exist. . i dont see how useing a religious figure would disprove the fact that there could be atomic butterflies on mars. - -"The existence of said archaic god has not been proven. My opponent must prove that the Roman god Mars exists to have any chance to win the debate. "- -The god mars never existed, i made this debate with the hopes that at least one person would have the logic to understand that when i spoke of mars i meant the one that truely exists in space, not some idea someone had in there head many years ago. Also i just have to say. . did you truely need to change definitions around to win this? - -"Every claim made in this statement has not been proven and is furthermore completely irrelevant. "- -Are you rediculous? - Now for round 2! -"An insulting video does not constitute a proof that the resolution is true. "- -Yes it does! - -"My opponent has failed to prove the resolution true, or even provide one bit of evidence that the resolution is true. "- -And you my fwend have shown no evidence to prove otherwise- -"The Pro has been destroyed by the atomic bomb of clear" -Acording to your logic. . atomic bombs dont exist- -"are obviously false with any logical reading of the debate. "- ->. >. .. <. -yeeeaa. .
atomic butterflies exist on mars

An insulting video does not constitute a proof that the resolution is true. My opponent has failed to prove the resolution true, or even provide one bit of evidence that the resolution is true. Additionally, he has failed to respond both to my rebuttals of the two-sentence infantile rambling that made up his case, and the robust case against the resolution that I made. The Pro has been destroyed by the atomic bomb of clear, rational argumentation. His ad hominem attacks against me, as stated in his video, are obviously false with any logical reading of the debate.
atomic butterflies exist on mars

Thanks to frenchmoosetwo for the debate. My opponent has not offered any definitions, so any definitions I provide are the only legitimate definitions in the round. Atomic—existing in the state of separate atoms (Merriam-Webster's) Butterflies—any of numerous slender-bodied diurnal lepidopteran insects including one superfamily (Papilionoidea) with broad often brightly colored wings and usually another superfamily comprising the skippers (Merriam-Webster's) Exist—to have life or the functions of vitality (Merriam-Webster's) On—used as a function word to indicate the object of collision, opposition, or hostile action (Merriam-Webster's) Mars—the Roman god of war (Merriam-Webster's) My opponent provided no definitions, so these definitions are the only definitions usable in the round. My arguments: The resolution is contradictory and arbitrary. 1) Butterflies cannot be atomic. A butterfly, according to biochemistry, is necessarily made up of molecules that are not in the state of separate atoms. Anything in the state of separate atoms i.e. unbonded and not molecular cannot be a butterfly. 2) Anything that is atomic cannot exist. According to biochemistry, anything that is in a free atomic state cannot be alive and/or have the functions of vitality. 3) It is quite impossible for something to exist on anything. Life and/or the functions of vitality cannot be in opposition to something, especially an archaic Roman god that is not proven to be. 4) The existence of said archaic god has not been proven. My opponent must prove that the Roman god Mars exists to have any chance to win the debate. Rebuttals: "I can almost gaurentee [sic] this through scientific facts and demonstrations." First of all, you must prove that the resolution is true, not "almost guarantee" it. Secondly, a supernatural being like the Roman god Mars cannot be proven scientifically. Third, a demonstration of the resolution is intrinsically impossible, as I stated above. "Fruit loops are magicly [sic] delicious as well but this is complelely [sic] relevent [sic] yes. [sic]" Every claim made in this statement has not been proven and is furthermore completely irrelevant.
Superman can beat batman in a fair fight

Fair: in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. But what really are the rules or standards? I say one is equal prep time The first bit of evidence is superman is Kryptonian, while Batman is only human. Superman has a stronger anatomy than batman and can withstand bigger blows. While Batman's anatomy is very weak like ours. He cant be thrown into a wall, he cant jump off a building without having major injuries. While superman can just easily take some of those blows. Now my opponent bring up the obvious argument, batman just pulls out kryptonite and BAM instant win. Well, it is not a trump card at all. Look at Superman's fights with Lex Luthor, how many times has Lex Luthor pulled that on superman and still lost? Many time in fact. Also another reason is that superman has his radiation suit, which keeps out the effects of radiation of the kryptonite. So if superman is wearing that then fights over, he wins without a doubt. I have said reasons why kryptonite doesn't work and why it would be a very one sided fight.
The United States Should Set a More Constructive Example for Future Superpowers

I would like to challenge your very basic of assumptions made before you even started to debate this round. You assumed that the United States set an example. You assumed that the other nations, are going to copy us. Who is stopping them from copying Rome with it's military might, or ancient Greece with it's Philosophical and Academic superiority. What about Persia? All of these were superpowers before the United States. Who did we copy? Surely not England with their monarch. Surely not the ancient Greeks with their lack of central government. Surely not Rome who took over everything they could. Same with Persia. So who then did we copy? The answer is no one. We created ourselves. So with many precedents set, we chose to go our own way. Who is to say that the next superpower won't do the same? To assume that China or another nation will follow in the footsteps of the U.S. is absurd. China's culture is extremely different, as is India's or most of the other countries around the world. Why would they follow in our footsteps? They wouldn't. There is no evidence supporting this claim. Where have we seen a superpower copy another superpower? The closest example is that of persia and rome, but even they did it differently. The romans used the Senate and an Emperor, while the persians just had one ruler. The romans let everyone stay where they were, while the persians sent most of the people they captured back to Babylon. they would interbreed hoping to breed out the ones they captured, and only have pure persians. Never in the history of the world has one superpower copied another. To assume that the next one would start is absurd. The reason for that is because by the time the next superpower arises, the previous one has fallen. Why would someone want to copy something that didn't work? America isn't setting an example for future superpowers. No one is. No one has. And no one will.
The United States Should Set a More Constructive Example for Future Superpowers

The United States of America has experienced a meteoric rise in power over the course of its brief existence. A mere two-and-a-quarter centuries ago, our nation did not exist; today we are the world's greatest economic and military power. In fact, we are the most powerful political unit in the history of mankind. As quickly as our exalted position came, however, it can (and will) go. The signs of our decline are already present. The developing economies of India and China will outstrip ours in a mere ten to twenty years. The European Union continues to strengthen economically as well. In short, we will not be the world's greatest power for much longer. We must begin thinking of our legacy, and the example we set for powers to come. The events that brought us to the height of our power, namely World Wars I and II, also earned us the world's goodwill. We demonstrated our willingness to intervene on behalf of our allies. Following WWII, we went to great lengths to help rebuild the shattered economies of Europe and Japan. We acted benevolently, and were recognized for our actions. Since we have taken the mantle of the "World's Greatest Superpower," however, we have acted foolishly more often than not. Our actions have most often been motivated by self-interest and greed (see: Cuba, Vietnam War, Iran/Contra, Central American "regime change," Gulf War, Iraq War) than not (Irish peace accords, Kosovo). Our new doctrine of "pre-emptive war" is particularly disturbing. Not only has pursuing this doctrine in Iraq damaged our standing in the global community, it has set a very dangerous precedent. To illustrate why we must change course, please join me in some speculation. Imagine, if you will, the world half a century hence. China's economy and military dominate the global scene.The European Union is a close second. Trailing behind are the U.S., Russia, and India. The U.S. finds itself in a heated territorial dispute with China regarding a source of fuel. Rhetoric escalates. China, in the interest of its "national security," launches a pre-emptive war against the U.S. to disarm us of our nuclear weapons. This is the kind of precedent we have set. We must change it, before it is too late.
The illuminati is real

Now, Although this is the acceptance round, I would like to "clear the air" so to speak. I am a debater. I belong to a home school debate league. And if there is one thing I learned, it is this: Never debate anything until you have the definitions laid out. With that in mind, and seeing that my opponent did not provide any definitions, I will provide my own. Illuminati - "People claiming to possess special enlightenment or knowledge of something. "Real - "Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. "Both definitions were retrieved from oxforddictionaries. com. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...I hope that this ensures that my oponent and I are both debating on the same page. I look forward to an enlightening and intellectual debate.
The illuminati is real

Yes my opponent is right and I do agree with him. And I will apologize for forfeiting due to unforeseen cur stances. His point on claim and are did convince me of his side and Ill say this: vote pro, he won and deserves it. If any one does want to debate if the illuminati is real using this definition of illuminati: a Bavarian secret society founded in 1776, organized like the Freemasons, still exist today just message me and I would be happy to.
The illuminati is real

"Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" - Isaiah 5:21 (KJV)Since my opponent forfeited this round, I would like to quickly (less than 200 words, I promise) go over my position so that the voters may see why they should vote for PRO.Basically, as the definitions go, what my opponent and I have agreed is that this resolution is as follows: "There exist such people that think they are smarter that others".This point alone should be enough to show that a PRO vote is warranted. Even if there are no examples in literature (there are), modern news (there are), or any website out there (there are... multiple times), just looking at the people around you should prove this fact.As a general rule, most humans think themselves to be smarter than everyone else in the world.I admit to being one of these people. This isn't necessarily a fault, just a reminder that we are human.Because of all of this, we can see and easily conclude that yes, The illuminati is real.
The illuminati is real

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." -Confucius (http://www.brainyquote.com...)I thank my opponent for this debate. I will confess that even in a "loosely structured debate", I am a stickler for structure. I will try to be a bit "loose", but I may not succeed very well. (I may also come off as a bit brash, and I apologize in advance.)Now before I begin my arguments, I will set up a quick resolution analysis. What am I, as the PRO, arguing for?The resolution states the THE ILLUMINATI IS REAL. As we have seen from both my and my opponent's definitions, the Illuminati are people who claim to have knowledge that others do not. So I, as the PRO, are arguing that such people are real. They are not fictitious, they are not imagined. They are concrete.With that in mind, let's move to my main arguments. Since, according to my opponent in round 1, I should not respond to his points until round 4, I will only be making points to support my side.POINT 1: "CLAIM" IS DIFFERENT THAN "DO"As the definition of Illuminati states, these are people who "claim" to have higher knowledge. Note that it does not state that they "do" have higher knowledge."claim" as a verb, according to oxford dictionaries, is to "State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)So, when we say that the Illuminati is real, we say that such people who believe (without proof) that they have hidden knowledge actually exist.POINT 2: EVIDENCE OF PEOPLE CLAIMINGThis point should be "evidence of people claiming to possess higher knowledge", but for the purpose of rebuttals, the shorter tagline will do.There are many examples of people or entities who claim to have higher intelligence or knowledge of something than others.The Church in 16th and 17th century. (http://www.studentpulse.com...)King George III during the Revolutionary War. (http://www.shmoop.com...)Even Barack Obama. (http://www.politico.com...)These are just some of the examples of people who believed that they were smarter than others. There are many more throughout history, and even in the present.In conclusion, I, as the PRO, am arguing that there is such things as people who claim to have more intelligence than others, and there is evidence of such people.For this reason, I stand that The illuminati is Real
The illuminati is real

Forward Now I will say I am not a part of a debate team or any debate organization so this will be a very loosely structured debate. I thank my respectable opponent for his definitions of the terms, and I am thrilled to be debating someone of his skill. Also for all purposes of this debate enlightenment in the context of the definition of illuminati is a state of being enlightened. Enlightened is defined by Webster as: having or showing a good understanding of how people should be treated (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) The Internet When you look at the internet it is hard to imagine that someone can know something that any other user on the internet can’t find. You can password protect that information, but passwords can be evaded. I would hope that it is realized by my opponent. Yes there will always be people who know more on a topic, but special, exclusive, enlightenment is a thing of the past. Code of Laws A code of laws lays out a process by which people should be treated. In modern countries (even Russia . http://www.russian-civil-code.com... ) it is possible to find their code of law. The full US Code is online (. http://uscode.house.gov... ) and lays out how people are to be treated in legal matters in the US. Sure this code doesn't deal with all legal matters but states have their own codes (ex: . http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...) which are accesable to the public. Business All business have policy on how employees and customers are to be treated which can all be found on public record. None of this information can be legally hidden from the public especially if a company is public All of apples governing documents are found online so the way it operates and treats people as a result of that governance is all public. And if any company doesn't treat employees well, suddenly its front page news.
Should governments be obliged to borrow money to create new infrastructure

My opponent forfeited the last round but I will continue to make my argument. First, public infrastructure as The Economist notes in a recent article is essential to our economy, or as they nicely summarize it: “Ports, power lines and schools are essential to the smooth running of the economy.”[1] Not only is public infrastructure vital and necessary for the economy but not doing poses problems, if not potential threats to the country. As Senator Cory Booker recently highlighted in an interview with NBC News the Amtrak derailment recently could likely have been prevented had the nation spend the time and money on fixing an ageing rail system.[2] At the same time, this is going on, other advanced economies are putting money and resources into building high-speed rail, including China.[3] The United States should be competing with China in this area because it is a benefit to citizens, the public and provides a boost to the entire economy. My opponent has failed to dispute any of these points. Please consider voting for Pro. [1] http://www.economist.com... [2] http://www.nbcnews.com... [3] http://www.forbes.com...
Should governments be obliged to borrow money to create new infrastructure

BOP is assumed split since the instigator is Con, so 50/50 BOP Government should be obliged to borrow [for the debate I insist these means assume debt of some kind through treasury bonds] money to create new infrastructure when voters want it and through their representatives pass legislation. Con states, “Governments should not be forced to lend money because it would jeopardize their financial position. But clearly the debate resolution says, obliged to borrow, so Con’s point that the government is being forced is a canard. Who is forcing the government? I would assume the representatives and the people that elected them. Infrastructure is not only a good investment; it helps both private business and individuals by providing contracts, jobs, and wages. Moreover, in the United States out infrastructure is crumbling, so in reality we need to renew our investment in roads, bridges, sewer systems and all the rest.