BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal testing should not be allowed.

I am aware of your stance on animal testing an I am debating that it should NOT be allowed. I provided two reasons as to why that is... I negate animal testing (despite what the resolution says) for the following two reasons... Point one: ANIMAL TESTING CAN HAVE MISLEADING RESULTS The purpose of animal testing is to apply products to animals before testing them on humans. While this can be important for the safety of the human subject the results for the animal subjects can be horrifying. While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, "...research with animals is misleading." A few examples include: drugs that would not have harmed humans did harm mice and were consequently not put on the market, researchers working with monkey models of HIV tested a vaccine on the monkeys and subsequently gave the vaccine to humans who were harmed as a result. The harms of animal testing (as proven by the previous two examples) can go both ways. on to my point two... Point two: ANIMAL TESTING HAS HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. Many positive changes have not occurred due to animal testing. The National Cancer Institute has stated that society may have lost cures for cancer because of animal testing. The whole moral debate aside, the entire medical field could have been revolutionized, but animal testing stood in the way. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you approach the topic. Whether from a moral or practical stand point, animal testing ought not be affirmed. Because of all that has and has not happened as a result of animal testing, I urge you to vote negative. (I'm sorry if I'm still not understanding your stance). Thank you
Animal testing should not be allowed.

Granted, the affirmative can provide multiple reasons why animal testing is beneficial and should be around it is important to remember the negative consequences of animal testing must be acknowledged. The purpose of animal testing is to apply products to animals before testing them on humans. While this can be important for the safety of the human subject the results for the animal subjects can be horrifying. While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, "...research with animals is misleading." A few examples include: drugs that would not have harmed humans did harm mice and were consequently not put on the market, researchers working with monkey models of HIV tested a vaccine on the monkeys and subsequently gave the vaccine to humans who were harmed as a result. The harms of animal testing (as proven by the previous two examples) can go both ways. Furthermore, many positive changes have not occurred due to animal testing. The National Cancer Institute has stated that society may have lost cures for cancer because of animal testing. The whole moral debate aside, the entire medical field could have been revolutionized, but animal testing stood in the way. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you approach the topic. Whether from a moral or practical stand point, animal testing ought not be affirmed. Because of all that has and has not happened as a result of animal testing, I urge you to vote negative. Thank you http://www.opposingviews.com...
Joke War

What a shame, I was hoping for some great jokes from opponent. I hope my opponent is well. My final jokes: 1. Yo mama is so fat, I took a picture of her last Christmas and it's still printing. 2. Chuck Norris asked God for a bike but he knew God didn't work that way so God begged for forgiveness. 3. There was a blonde who was sitting next to a lawyer on an airplane. The lawyer was naturally bored, so he kept bugging the blonde to play a game of intelligence with him. The blonde was reluctant, so the lawyer offered her 10 to 1 odds. He told her that every time she could not answer his question, she owed him $5, but every time he could not answer hers, he'd give her $50. The lawyer figured the blonde was so dumb, he could not lose, and the blonde thought for a few minutes and reluctantly accepted to play his game. The lawyer fires his first question "What is the distance between the Earth and the nearest star?" Without saying a word the blonde handed him $5. The blonde then asked the lawyer "What goes up a hill with 3 legs and comes back down the hill with 4 legs?" The lawyer's face looked extremely puzzled. He spent several hours, looking up everything he could on his laptop and even placing numerous air-to-ground phone calls trying to figure out the answer. Finally, the angry and frustrated lawyer handed the blonde $50.00. The blonde put the $50 into her purse quickly without saying a word. The lawyer was outraged at this point and asked, "Well, what is answer?" The blonde glanced at him with a smirk on her face and handed him a $5 bill. 4. I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me. 5. What's the difference between a boy scout and a jew? A boy scout comes back from camp. 6. Why did Sally fall of the swing set? Because she has no arms. Knock Knock Who's There? Not Sally 7. A student is talking to his teacher. Student: "Would you punish me for something I didn't do?" Teacher:" Of course not." Student: "Good, because I haven't done my homework."
Joke War

1. Yo mama is so fat when your teacher asked you to draw her, you asked for more paper. 2. Chuck Norris threw a grenade and killed 50 people then the grenade blew up. 3. On a deserted island there were three women, a blond a brunette and a redhead. They needed to get back to the mainland and the only way was by swimming. The redhead goes first. She makes it a quarter of the way then drowns. The brunette goes second. She makes it one third of the way then drowns. The blonde comes last. She makes it one half of the way, gets tired and then turns back. 4. I forgot how to throw a boomerang, then it came back to me. 5. What did the black boy get for Christmas? My bike 6. I was reading a book on anti-gravity, but put it down because it was boring. 7. Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the gay guy's house. Knock knock. Who's there? The Chicken.
Joke War

Voters will vote for whichever side had better/funnier jokes. 1st round is acceptance 2nd round & 3rd round are for the jokes Rules: We will post 7 jokes per round: 1 joke must be a yo mama joke 1 joke must be a chuck norris joke 1 joke must be a hair joke, like gingers,blondes,etc 1 joke must be a pun joke. For example: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up? Because it was two-tired. 1 joke must be a racist joke 1 joke must be an anti-joke. For example: Whats worst than a worm in an apple? The Holocaust. The last joke can be any joke you want. Jokes cannot be repeated.
Resolved: Just governments ought to enusre food security for their citizens

My NC is attached: https://docs.google.com... If there is a problem with opening the case, say something in the comments section and I will do what I can. Rebuttals: Implementation necessary for aff shell: https://docs.google.com... Again, same as above Additionally, my opponent has not provided any empirical evidence to why we must vote for them. They just provide speaking points and I honestly have no idea how to respond as my opponent has not provided any real arguments Thus I negate
Universal Healthcare

1. Our different views on rights are the keys to our argument. What my opponent doesn't understand is that if a 'right' violates a true right, then the 'right' cannot be considered a right. As for "poor grandma", there is a difference between mocking and refutation. What I did was the latter. The 15% of baby boomers who have no insurance made a decision, and it is not the business of the rest of us to change it. Also, that number is unsourced. I'm not sure what my opponent finds so amusing about ethics and wealth. While there is corruption and theft, wealth comes from responsibility, and responsibility is ethical. Corruption and theft are irresponsible, and do not truly create wealth because the money belongs to somebody else. Universal healthcare, like all welfare programs, teach people to be irresponsible. There is no way around that. If any risk to one's actions are taken away, people will do extremely risky things, knowing there will be no consequences. As for wikipedia being a source, my opponent's reaction is very strange. He makes many unsourced claims, but when I provide a source he attacks it. Anyways, my opponent said that countries with universal healthcare are wealthier than the United States. I provided an example of a country with universal healthcare that is suffering right now, and he claims that it is a completely different scenario. By that logic, any countries he was thinking of when he made his initial claim must also be irrelevant. 2. If universal healthcare tries to artificially lower medical costs, doctors will be payed less. The best and the brightest will not want to go into such a field. The growth in the industrial revolution was not due to anything involving the government. It was due to innovations, leading to new industries, new companies, and new jobs. Taxation may not impede goals that much, but that is like justifying robbing somebody by saying that it wasn't that much money. As for the morally questionable shenanigans of charities, the government is no better. The government has a long history of morally reprehensible behaviors. And government's money is not voluntary, but coercive. That in itself is wrong, but even more so if taxes are increased. If the government didn't try to monopolize welfare, wouldn't charities have more incentive to behave better? P. S. Healthcare doesn't necessarily make people happy either. Thank you to ConformistDave for this debate.
Universal Healthcare

1. Healthcare is not a right- My opponent and I, simply have a different view on what is and what is not a right. He seems to think that the "poor grandma" argument is something to mock. It is reported that 15% of the baby boomer generation was uninsured in 2009. With a whole generation about to retire, his "ethical" voluntarism would simply be disastrous. it surprises me that my friend here seems to think that those that live ethically are those that become wealthy. LOL. Whether or not the elderly generation lived responsibly or not, we have the burden to take care of them. Universal healthcare does not encourage people to be irresponsible. That is absolutely absurd. It encourages us to act as a nation, and to pool our resources in the most effective manner. He claims to have cited wikipedia as a source. Greece is a completely different scenario than the United States, and comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. 2. Many insurance workers would lose their jobs- Obamacare is reported to created approximately 6 million jobs by the end of the decade. This is because through reform and salary bonus, the best and the brightest will be looking to enter the medical field. This is wonderful news considering the string of unfortunate events that led us to the Great Recession. The source I will provide is an in-depth pdf file from Georgetown Public Policy Institute, explaining the much needed healthcare reform. And also, in the industrial revolution jobs were created, and also some jobs were lost. The industrial revolution had much economic growth due to public-private ownership, and granted rights from the state. Taxation does not necessarily impede peoples goals. And as of moral concerns, charities are questionable. Many charities are involved in morally questionable shenanigans. P.S. Drugs don't necessarily make people happy. Source: http://www9.georgetown.edu...
Universal Healthcare

Defense: 1. Healthcare is not a right Negative rights are the only rights. Positive rights infringe on the negative rights of others, and thus are not rights. My opponent mentions other positive 'rights' but fails to understand that they too are privileges, not rights. As for cavemen, my opponent strawmans my argument. I did not say we should base our society on caveman society. I said that we have the same inalienable rights as cavemen. As for the 'poor grandma' argument, this is precisely the reason why we have insurance. But insurance must be voluntary, just like any other ethical transaction. Under universal healthcare, the only elderly that are helped are those that lived their lives irresponsibly. Those that lived responsibly end up wealthy, and those grandmas are the ones paying the bill. Universal healthcare encourages irresponsibility, and that is not the basis for a functioning society. 2. Many insurance workers would lose their jobs How exactly would Obamacare create jobs? I would like a source and an explanation. As for the industrial revolution, jobs were created. That's what happens when there is innovation. And yes, some people did lose their jobs, but that will always happen. What shouldn't happen is the government intervening and choosing a side. People that lose jobs in a free market can get new ones, but if they were forced out of their job by the government, this will be a lot harder. As for everyone having to put off goals because somebody else had the audacity to make their own decision in life, this makes no sense. The government will have to increase taxes to pay for healthcare. That impedes people's goals. Rebuttal: 1. Happiness is abstract. It cannot be quantified. That aside, drugs make people happy as well. That does not make them healthy. 'Free' healthcare creates a false sense of happiness. As for countries with universal healthcare having more money, Greece has universal healthcare. The country is broke and many cannot afford healthcare anyway (1). 2. The claim that we have to look out for the poor is moral hypocrisy. My opponent does not believe this claim, because if he did, he would simply donate to charities. Instead, he and many others instead try to force other people to pay taxes to somebody else (the government), who then forces somebody else (doctors, insurance companies) to give up their rights to support the privileges of the poor. Donating ethical and simple, government intervention is unethical and complicated. As for fearing universal healthcare blindly, I think the fact that I am debating this means that I have reasons that are far from blind. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Universal Healthcare

1. Healthcare is not a right- Many of the rights you had mentioned were negative rights, and thus you have completely overlooked the situation at hand. Rights do in fact protect against coercion, but also in fact have to be just, to serve the populace. Many folks would agree that the right to counsel, and the military would be legitimate concerns for society to serve. Healthcare does have to be given by someone else, but so does food if you are not a farmer. We all like food. Cavemen were not entitled to banks and crediting institutions either. The caveman is not a model to base our society over. If healthcare was not universal, then you are right it would be a voluntary transaction. And the bottom line is, if you can't meet the exuberant costs of nearly 8,000 dollars per person, and not to mention the fact that insurance policies rise exponentially each year, then you are out of luck. If universal healthcare were to pass, not only would health care costs decrease, but also that $25,000 bill wouldn't only be put on poor grandma. 2. Many insurance workers would lose their jobs- Okay maybe in that particular setting, but you are looking at this claim very narrowly. Just the recently passed health care reform itself is going to create many jobs. About 6 million worth of jobs. The industrial revolution made people lose jobs sure, but looking back we can say we were glad that it had taken place. If some people seek private insurance that is up to them. But don't expect the rest of us to put our goals on hold, for someone that would still want to go through hoops for health insurance. Be my guest. Claims 1- The United States is one of the few countries that doesn't have a national or universal healthcare. If you look around the world you will see that while we actually have the lowest health among developed countries, countries that spend much less on healthcare are much happier and have more money in their pocket. 2- We have to look out for our own people- Many organizations can cut off the middle man of insurance companies, and still deliver good results. it is estimated that 20-30 million Americans can have quality care, and on regular healthcare that they would not be able to get any other way but with community help. Federal Grants simply work. And this is the sad part, many organizations that would want federal aid simply cannot get it, because people like my opponent simply fear a universal healthcare blindly.
Universal Healthcare

Contentions: 1. Healthcare is not a right Rights are things such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One is entitled to them at birth, no matter where or when they live. Rights protect against coercion. Healthcare is a privilege. It must be given by somebody else, and certainly has not existed for all of human history. Cavemen were obviously not entitled to healthcare because it didn't exist for them. If healthcare was not universal, it would be a voluntary transaction, but under universal healthcare the doctor or insurance company is not allowed to say 'no' to somebody. Not only is healthcare not a right, 2. Many insurance workers will lose their jobs Since government healthcare is funded by taxes, people are paying money into it. If they seek private healthcare instead, they end up paying for two insurances, when they only need one. This would of course be illogical, so private insurance companies would slowly go out of business. This would cause many insurance workers to lose their jobs. This is clearly not beneficial to society. I would like to remind my opponent to put forth his own claims as well as rebutting mine. I look forward to what he has to say.
Pc is better than Mac

I'm standing at pro Pc and my opponent will be pro Mac or con pc, whatever you want to say. A fully loaded Imac will put you out around $3,000. But a fully loaded Hp TouchSmart IQ800t series with Blue ray, and blue tooth, a wireless keyboard and mouse, for $1,700. even a watered down Mac costs $2,000. Pc also has a vast compatibility with gaming and random stuff for hacking, moding and all the good stuff like that. the debate itself is about all of Mac and PC including price, sorry for the confusion.
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood

The groundhog, also known as a woodchuck, or whistlepig, is a rodent of the family Sciuridae, belonging to the group of large ground squirrels known as marmots-wikipediaAnd rodents eat cheese, so I just devoured your argumentsBeavers r marmots 2 m8 they chuck woodget rek´t
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood

the woodchuck was proven to be a mythical creature and just a squirrel seen from a distance when cristopher columbo discoverd ho to build a light bulb in the year 2052. _/A099;\_ (s4;`_´) <,A083;_74;_72;^72; t1; - - - get rekt m8 _/A099;\_ https://en.wikipedia.org...;
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood

(pro)I am arguing that a woodchuck could not chuck any wood because a woodchuck is a mythical creature like a unicorn or a platypus (con) you are saying it can chuck the amount lbs of your choosing. Rules this is a troll debate but it should be treated in the utmost importance. do not post your agreement directly underneath this just say you accept an wait till the round after. who will be my challenger
The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

While my opponent tries to argue that his definitions have to do with God and religion, mine do not. I am debating off of the definitions that I have given. Just to clear up any prior confusion I'd like to define marriage for you as The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex. My partner's Constitution argument must be invalid as well because there are many cases in which we have national laws and things that are legal throughout the nation that the state's do NOT have control over such as tobacco for example. Also, legalizing gay marriage everywhere is not tyrannical. In fact its more tyrannical for the government to call it illegal because that's the government taking control of our personal lives. My opponent says that "We haven't always been the open minded country we are now. My previous site states that less than 21 percent of elderly people agree with gay marriage. If you go farther back, that will decline sharply. Until fairly recently, THERE WERE NO MARRIAGES OF HOMOSEXUALS! !! !" and he is correct but at the same time you have to realize that times have changed and while the elderly feels that homosexuals are an abomination, people of this decade do not. Times have changed for a number of different things and frankly gay marriage is only the beginning. He claims that "Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God" and while that may be true, I ask you this, who cares? What we have to realize here is that not everyone believes in God. If they do, that's great, that's another debate. So if my opponent truly wishes not to debate God's existence, let us shy away from the Christianity references. Thank you. "In marriage, religion, as I've proven, is spiritually and religiously involved. Politics do not involve themselves with the conducting of marriage or personal belief of the God it includes, they just recognize the couple as conjoined. Also, it states that "God loves everyone", but God provides no haven for sinners unless they "repent" their sins, something that this act does not do; he doesn't approve the marriage" Well, as I have proven, marriage does not always have to do with God. If that were the case, what happens when an Atheist gets married? Politics and the law have everything to do with marriage, hints the fact that it is illegal while it should be legal. Once again, that's GREAT that God doesn't approve of gay marriage, there's a lot that "God" doesn't approve of, yet it's still legal. "If my opponent does not approve of the conviction of others beliefs, why does he convict me that when I believe legalizing gay marriage is wrong? That is hypocritical and self-contradicting. " I'm by no means convicting you for you're beliefs. I'm saying that while you may think it's 'wrong,' that does NOT give anyone the right to tell anyone, gay or not, that they cannot marry whomever they want. My point was and is that God and religion does NOT matter in this debate. Therefore Con has failed to show why the marriage amongst homosexuals should not be legal in the USA.