BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Laser pointers are in popular demand.

Laser pointers are in very popular demand and sell easily at dear prices. Most people don't use them dangerously and they do have many uses. They are most commonly used to project light onto points in a business presentation. They are convenient to have for all sorts of reasons and in dim light they can easily be pointed to things. They are commonly used for many different reasons and their only use is certainly not just pointing them at landing aircraft.
Algae can filter C02 from coal and be used for biofuel

Power plants that emit large quantities of C02 can be fitted with algae biofuel systems, in which waste C02 is used by algae in the process of photosynthesis, creating as a result a useful biofuel. Lisa Colosi, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Virginia, supports this notion, arguing, "the main principle of industrial ecology is to try and use our waste products to produce something of value."[4]
Algae biofuel can scale to replace oil

Nick Hodge. "Biodiesel Bliss - The Second Coming". Energy and Capital. 2 Apr. 2007 - "Research like that being done at the Colorado State University’s (CSU) Engines and Energy Conservation Laboratory and the University of New Hampshire (UNH), suggests that algae could supply enough fuel to meet all of America’s transportation needs in the form of biodiesel."
Biproducts of algae biofuels are useful fertilizaers

Nick Hodge. "Biodiesel Bliss - The Second Coming". Energy and Capital. 2 Apr. 2007 - "fertilizer for other food crops can be produced by using the leftover nutrients that aren’t used to make the biofuel...after the necessary oils have been extracted from the algae, we use the byproducts (phosphorus and nitrogen) as fertilizer for the food crops that feed the nation--all while extracting C02 from the air."
Using algae to filter coal then burning it emits captured C02

"Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "Algal fuel can even be considered a worse idea than "clean" coal. In the "clean" coal strategy, at least the CO2 is captured with the intention to store it underground. In the case of algae, the CO2 is captured only with the intention to release in the air some time later, by a car engine."
Algae pools can become contaminated and less efficient

"Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "low-tech methods (comparable to growing corn, soy or palm trees to make ethanol or biodiesel) are being left behind for more efficient ones, using closed glass or polycarbonate bioreactors and an array of high-tech equipment to keep the algae in optimal conditions. Even though some companies still prefer open ponds (like the PetroSun plant that started production last week), this method has serious drawbacks. The main problem is contamination by other kinds of algae and organisms, which can replace the energy producing algae in no time."
Algae can be produced locally for food and fuel

"Algae: Not Only The Best Biofuel By Far...". Ecoversity - "But algae-culture holds the further promise of the potential of small-scale localized systems for food production as well as fuel production. There's no quicker way to produce food from sunlight, and the time may soon be coming to many parts of the world where food for humans becomes more a more urgent concern than the production of fuel."
Industrial algae biofuel requires too many nutrients

"Algae biofuel mania". Stockhouse. 11 June 2008 - "I might point out that some of the more vociferous algae pimps are suggesting that algae need merely be introduced into a properly designed, water filled bioreactor and the organisms will multiply until the unit is packed to overflowing with tons upon tons of green biomass, all in the space of days. This is patent nonsense. Algae can grow quickly, but only in the presence of sufficient nutrients. Just like any other organism, algae require carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and various other minerals."
Solar power is greener than algae biofuel

"Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "The water issue is not the only 'detail' that threatens the energy efficiency of algal fuel. Compared to other plants, the photosynthetic efficiency of algae is high – almost 3 times that of sugar cane for instance. Compared to solar energy, however, the energy efficiency of algae is very low – around 1 percent, while solar panels have an efficiency of at least 10 percent, and solar thermal gets 20 percent and more. So why would we choose algae over solar energy?"
Algae photo-bioreactors require very little land

"Algae: Not Only The Best Biofuel By Far...". Ecoversity - "For the algae-culture projects which use large growing ponds, the potential biodiesel production per acre is 30 to 100 times greater than obtainable with corn, soy and palm oil. However the most efficient systems, called photo-bioreactors, stack clear tubes of water with algae in the sun, requiring very little acreage for significant production. This is the system we are demonstrating at Ecoversity."
Indusrial algae depends on dense C02 from coal

"Algae biofuel mania". Stockhouse. 11 June 2008 - "Algae can obtain carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the amounts present are insufficient to promote rapid growth. That requires something like smokestack effluents containing more than 10% CO2, and in fact some of the earliest attempts to grow algae as a fuel source were predicated upon the development of pervasive industrial carbon dioxide capture. That's not happening, and unless it does, real mass production of algal biofuel is scarcely possible."
Human waste and sewage can be used to grow algae biofuel

Nick Hodge. "Biodiesel Bliss - The Second Coming". Energy and Capital. 2 Apr. 2007 - "It is possible to use human sewage and wastewater from agricultural endeavors to enhance the growth of algae...In fact, when done right, algae can double and even triple overnight with the addition of these fertilizers...Compare that to the five-month growing season for soy or canola!"
Algae biofuel is commercially viable on an industrial scale

Carli Ghelfi. "Turning algae into ethanol, and gold". 11 June 2008 - "Naples, Fla.-based Algenol Biofuels says it has found a way to inexpensively bring third-generation biofuels to industrial scale...And, unlike most algal biofuel companies, it's apparently got a licensing deal for an $850 million project to show for it...The company believes its seawater-based process can generate up to a billion gallons of algal ethanol per year from a facility in Mexico."
Algae biofuel requires substantial quantities of water

Algae requires pools of standing water - not just water in the soil - to grow. It, therefore, requires substantial quantities of water. It take a significant quantity of energy to get that water to algae biofuel farms. It also diverts water from other important resources, such as irrigation for food farms and for direct human consumption. "Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "Algae need a lot of sunshine and huge amounts of water - how do you get seawater to the desert?"
Hi-tech algae biofuel plants require too much energy/money

"Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "you have to build an array of structures [in algae biofuel bioreactors]: the glass or polycarbonate containers themselves, the metal frames, the greenhouses. The production of all this equipment might consume less energy (and money) per square meter than the production of solar panels, but you need much more of it because algae are less efficient than solar plants. Moreover, in closed bioreactors, CO2 has to be added artificially. This is done by bubbling air through the water by means of gas pumps, a process that needs energy. Furthermore, the containers have to be emptied and cleaned regularly, they have to be sterilized, the water has to be kept at a certain temperature, and minerals have to be added continuously (because also here, just as with cellulosic ethanol, "waste" materials are being removed). All these processes demand extra energy."
Algae biofuel is carbon neutral; only emits C02 that it absorbs.

Growing algae absorbs C02 in the process of photosynthesis. It is a carbon sink. This is why, when algae biofuels are burned and emit some C02, the emission balance is C02 neutral; it emits only C02 it previously absorbed, adding no new C02 into the atmosphere. Because it is carbon neutral in this way, it is a renewable energy source that can be produced and burned for energy sustainably.
Algae biofuel will fail like other biofuels

"Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "While the first generation of biofuels is wreaking havoc on the environment and the food markets, the second generation is getting ready to make things only worse. Behind the scenes, scientists are already working on the third generation, whatever that may be. In five or ten years time, when it becomes clear that algal fuel is devouring our water and energy resources and cellulosic ethanol is mining our agricultural soils, we will be promised that the third generation will again solve all the problems of the previous generation."
Algae biofuel start-ups exaggerate estimates to attract capital

"Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "It could be that these businesses are greatly overestimating their energy gains in order to attract capital. One of the few critics of algal fuel, Krassen Dimitrov, calculated that the figures of GreenFuel Technologies are defying the laws of physics. The company says that he is wrong, but his calculations surely look more convincing than the virtually non-existant information on their website."
Drug toxicity is rarely a result of any misleading animal testing

There are many factors involved in a drug being reported as toxic that are often cited as a result of animal-testing, but which have to do with other factors, such as human error in use or typical blood-type responses to particular drugs. While there are some instances of misleading results from animal testing that indicated a drug was safe when it was not, this is extremely rare. It is rare enough that it is both insignificant or at least consistent with other risks involved in human drug consumption.
Animal rights reduce humans to mere animals, not made in God's image

David R. Carlin, professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island - "By arguing that animals are equal to humans and thus deserve the same legal protection, animal rights proponents reduce human beings to nothing more than biological entities, on par with animals. Animal rights advocates' view of humanity negates fundamental Christian, Platonic, and Stoic claims that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Humans are clearly superior to animals. Granting animals legal rights would be dangerous and degrading to humans."
Protecting animals from suffering by humans is a matter of animal welfare not rights.

Many supposed animal rights activists claim that they desire to see animals have a right against suffering at the hands of humans. This might be a good idea, but it is false to claim that it is a "right". Such an idea can only be classified within the realm of animal welfare. The main reason is that it is only something that is practiced by humans unto animals, and can never be claimed or defended by animals out of their own accord. In addition, the idea only restricts humans against inflicting suffering on animals, but does restrict animals from inflicting suffering on other animals (not even animals within their own species). Because it is a one-way relationship in this sense (from human-kind onto individual animals), it can only be seen as welfare, not a right that an animal might be able to carry in all their relationships with other creatures.
Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements

While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science. There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong.
Animals deserve the same basic rights that humans enjoy

Marymoose. "The case against animal testing". Helium - "Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research (to humans) looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs (to animals). For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans. There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species over another this is specieism."
Medicines tested successfully on animals can prove toxic to humans

Uncaged - "to subject animals to painful, distressing and lethal experiments when the results are not applicable to humans." Some drugs like thalidomide and clioquinol proved safe in animal testing but were devastating in human consumption. The bigger point is that it is arguable that drugs have been used massively and inflicted massive harm on humans because they were falsely assumed to be safe for human consumption on the basis of animal tests.
Humans have a choice and thus responsibility to do no harm to animals.

Many opponents of animal rights and supporters of testing cite the fact that animals kill each other without public outcry, and ask, why humans should be held to a higher standard? The answer is that humans have the capacity to make the choice to inflict pain on animals. Animals, having no free will, so do not have this same ability to choose. Therefore, if we determine that it is morally ethical to do no harm to animals, since we have the choice, it is our unique responsibility to do no harm.
Eating and hunting of animals does not justify testing; equally wrong

It is not a justification for animal testing that some humans eat and hunt animals. A tenant of the animal rights community is that any form of harm to animals is wrong, usually if it can be easily avoided with reasonable substitutes. It is, therefore, also not appropriate to say that "the eating and hunting of animals goes without much public outcry, so why alienate animal testing?" The truth is that the eating and hunting of animals is met by substantial protest by animal rights activists. Again, hunting and meat consumption do not provide cover for animal testing.
Animals are important to testing life-saving drugs before they are safe for humans

Edythe London, UCLA researcher. "Why I use laboratory animals". Los Angeles Times. November 1, 2007 - "[animals] allow us to test possibly life-saving treatments before they are considered safe to test in humans." If animals were not available to use in testing drugs, it would be more difficult to determine the safety of a drug to humans, which would delay the release of potentially life-saving drugs. This could cost human lives.
Animal testing creates a high demand for animals and depletes populations

Animals used by laboratories for testing purposes are largely supplied by dealers who specialize in the trade. These include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals; businesses that trade in wild animals; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters may also supply the laboratories directly. Some animal dealers are reported to engage in kidnapping pets from residences or illegally trapping strays, a practice dubbed as bunching. In any case, the demand for animals from all of these sources is increased by the practice of animal testing. An investigation in 2007 highlighted the primate trade from Malayasia and Spain. In February 2008, the High Commission of Malayasia confirmed to the BUAV that a ban on the primate trade would be reinstated following the BUAV investigation.[14]
The Food and Drug Administration approves of animal testing in the case of cosmetics

Animal Testing, CFSAN/Office of Cosmetics and Colors, US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Revised May 3, 1999, June 9, 2005 and April 5, 2006 "The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety."
The ends (human benefits) don't justify the means (animal testing)

It is a common argument that it is dangerous and invalid for the ends to justify the means in society. This is often argued against utilitarian government actions that are performed with the intention of producing a certain desirable societal end, but whose means are unethical and violate human rights. Animal experimentation falls squarely into this ethical trap of justifying the ends (human benefits) by the means (animal testing). This is wrong, particularly because animals should enjoy many of the basic rights extended to humans, such as life and/or dignity. It is not acceptable to argue, "it's true that animal testing is really tortuous, but the human benefits justify it". Such utilitarian arguments fallaciously violate basic animal rights, and so can never be justified, no matter how great the supposed human benefits.
That animals harm/kill each other does not justify the same by humans

Michael Pollan. "An Animal's Place". The New York Times Magazine. November 10, 2002 - "My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another? (Ben Franklin tried this one long before me: during a fishing trip, he wondered, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you.' He admits, however, that the rationale didn't occur to him until the fish were in the frying pan, smelling 'admirably well.' The advantage of being a 'reasonable creature,' Franklin remarks, is that you can find a reason for whatever you want to do.) To the 'they do it, too' defense, the animal rightist has a devastating reply: do you really want to base your morality on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do. (Though if my cat, Otis, is any guide, animals sometimes kill for sheer pleasure.)"
Animal rights promotes the true science of humans and animals as kin

Animal testing and the subjugation of animals undermines a fundamental scientific reality; that humans and animals are kin. With humans and Chimpanzees sharing 99.4% of their genetic code, and humans and mice sharing 99% of their genetic code, it is important to recognize that humans are, on a scientific basis, the kin of animals. The testing of animals undermines this scientific understanding by subjugating animals. This is harmful to broader scientific progression in society.
Human and animal differences do not justify speciism/discrimination

Randy Fairchild. "The Case Against Animal Testing". Helium - "But even assuming that animals are so very different from us, where does this concept of difference justifying mistreatment come from? Is it supported in the modern ethics of developed countries? It certainly was not the principle justifying our war against Nazism, the better part of a century ago, let alone its more subtle ethical variant of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. A central concept of Civil Rights is to treat different persons as well or better (e.g. affirmative action) than oneself - In short, to ascend to selflessness, cherishing diversity."
Animal rights is not anti-science, but ethics must constrain science.

Many argue that animal rights activists are simply anti-science. This misunderstands the intentions of animal rights activists. They fully acknowledge that they science is important and even that animal testing can lead to major advancements in science. But, as is typically said, before science should ask if it can make certain advancements, it needs to ask if it should. Ethics has authority over all human endeavors, including science.
Animals are equal to humans in science as lifeforms on Earth

Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science."
Humans have dominion over animals with a right to exploit them

Genesis 1:28 - "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This means that humans have the sovereign right to subdue and control animals for man's own purposes.
Humans have always eaten/exploited animals; it has evolved into our DNA.

Michael Pollan. "An Animal's Place". The New York Times Magazine. November 10, 2002 - "There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity--our own animality."
"Dominion" makes humans stewards; no right to harm/exploit animals

Even if we apply the notion of "dominion", and if we deprive animals of rights, the principle of "dominion" should be applied in a way that requires humans to see themselves as "stewards" of animals. As outlined by Matthew Scully in Dominion, humans should apply the principle of mercy to animals, which requires that they inflict no pain or suffering on them. He writes, "We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but...because they stand unequal and powerless before us."[1] Part of the significance of this argument is that even if we conclude animals should not have rights, we can still conclude (via the principle of mercy) that animals should not be subjected to pain, suffering, and testing.
Animal testing has improved understanding of animals and their welfare.

What is often overlooked in this debate is the subject of veterinary medicine. It is in the interests of animals themselves that experiments be done on animals to test medicines and surgical procedures for using on animals themselves, not just on humans. Animal experimentation can be in the interests of animals as well as of humans. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood.[13]