BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal experimentation in the context of medical science

While my opponent cites the statistic that only 5-25% of animal tests are useful in humans, this avoids the main point of my argument. If there were no such thing as animal testing, that 5-25% would obviously imporove, as all tests would be conducted in humans and would therefore be relevant in humans. However, this also means that the dangerous treatments, which were before caught by animal tests would now be caught by seeing the adverse effects in humans. My opponent previously stated that the death toll from human testing is low. I proposed that this was because animal testing caught many of the 'bad' medicines. With animal testing gone, the death toll in human tests would inevitably rise, because, as I stated many times previously, all the dangerous medicines would be administered to humans, rather than being pulled before this could happen. This is indisputable. Furthermore, it is not necessary to cite when staing that animal tests proceed human trials as this is common knowledge, or, at least, it should be common knowledge to those reasonably familiar with the area. It would be akin to citing a piece of literature detailing that the heart pumps blood around the body. I would also like to point out that the link provided by my opponent (http://www.buzzle.com...) does indeed link to a page stating the 5-25% statistic. However, as Buzzle is not a peer reviewed journal the information it presents is useless. Nor does Buzzle reference their source for this statistic. The article also states states "Most of the drugs passed by animal tests are now discarded as useless to humans – then why test in the first place?" This reveals a profound misunderstanding by the author of the article. Animal testing is not meant to determine if drugs will work in humans. It is designed to reveal which drugs have a chance of working. This allows us to narrow down the number of drugs to be tested in humans, as it also helps to weed out the dangerous ones. Furthermore, while this may be a mere grammatical error, the quote from the article also seems to suggest that we should only test drugs we know will work, which is a bit odd, considering that there would be no reason to test the drugs in the first place if we knew that they worked. To summarise my argument for this round: While it is true that many animal tests are not applicable to humans, they are the best model we have at the moment. Without animal testing, the human death toll and number of adverse events would rise, as we would lack this initial screening procedure.
riddle in 5 min

I would first like to point out that Pro has set no stipulations as to how I should arrive at the answer as to "what happened. " In the past, users who would post riddles, perhaps also with time limits, would prohibit their opponents from searching for the riddle. My opponent has done no such thing. Therefore, the internet is fair game. The answer can be found here: . http://goodriddlesnow.com... This says, "The man was a fisherman and was telling somebody on the phone about the large fish he caught. When he used his hands to gesture how big the fish was he hit the glass breaking it and cutting himself. " There obviously isn't much more to explain. I have solved the riddle.
Is there such a thing as corporate welfare.

I already gave you the definition of welfare.How do you know that bankruptcy would not have been better for us than bailing out companies that already proved they mismanage the companies.Obama did not bail out GM. He bailed out the unions, which is the problem. And what is to make them operate any wiser. They were bailed out once, all that did was to enable bad behavior. Freedom is letting people succeed or fail without government intrusion.I have had downturns in business. I had to adjust some bad judgments. That is what real men do.Not run to government for a welfare check. That nonsense that something is too big to fail. Nothing is not too big to fail. There are laws of prosperity, and laws ff poverty.America is now walking in the laws of poverty. The main law of poverty is debt. We can collapse just as an individual can who is head over heels in debt.The coffers of those who are lending to us will eventually be cut off. And then what will government do. Raise taxes.
Is there such a thing as corporate welfare.

Using the definition of welfare as "the health, happiness, and fortunes of a persons or group," corporate welfare often succeeds in preventing prevalent industries from failing. Since failure in major industries and business often result in loss of jobs and wage, government intervention assists these industries by allowing them to continue and thus preventing job loss. The U.S government intervention in the automotive sector in 2008 shows the significance of preventing major industries from failing. Corporations ultimately affect larger numbers of people and have economic impact that can reach past its own industry. Since welfare is meant for the benefit of the people, it is within the best interest to protect large corporations as their failures would result in larger global and socioeconomic problems. In plain terms, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Is there such a thing as corporate welfare.

Blaming workers and unions for the failure of a company is appalling. Arguing that companies abuse corporate welfare and that unions abuse corporations insists companies hold no liability. The UAW started at a time where the auto industry was playing the same political game unions are associated to. Remember too that GM began outsourcing parts of the auto sector, cutting jobs in the U.S in favor of cheap labor. The Obama administration gave bailout money to protect the over 1.7 million workforce, not solely the unions. Obama was protecting a sector that generates 9.8% (as of 2013) of the countries GDP, more than food/beverages, and oil/petro. There is greed on both sides, that I agree, but saying that corporate welfare is solely negative is to undermine its entire purpose. It prevents the collapse of companies and jobs. Adding another 1.7 million people to unemployment is not a solution. As for crony capitalism, there is no favoring when you're protecting an entire industry.
Is there such a thing as corporate welfare.

1. You gave "A" definition of welfare, not "the" definition of welfare. 2. Hypothetical situations are useless. There is no way to accurately determine any fictional situation. 3. The bail out money was given to GM and Chrysler to prevent them from having to liquidate their assets, including their workforce. In basic math terms, more people working means less people seeking welfare. 4. We're not speaking about 'bad behavior,' this is reflective of the need to protect a workforce and industry that provides 3-3.5% of the U.S. GDP. 5. Protecting companies is not wasting resources on those abusing the system. When the economy of your country is so richly intertwined to one industry, failure can be disastrous 6. Everything in life can succeed or fail. Big or small. 7. Welfare is not meant to last. The auto industry is succeeding now and the bailout money has to be repaid. 8. Debt is everywhere, individually and commercially. But commercial debt has a larger impact on society than individual
The school plays a greater role in the development of a child than parents

In an environment where children spend 9 months of the year in schools, five days a week, from 8:30-4:00, in schools, schools most definitely play a larger role in the development of a child than parents do. Especially when you stop to consider that 50.1% of the population is part of what is considered the "lower class" and 12% of the population is part of what is considered poverty, and many people who are in poverty work two to three different jobs in order to stay alive and/or support their families, meaning that oftentimes, they are not at home to teach their children anything, or even help with homework. In a society where it is increasingly common to leave children at home for extended periods of time, simply out of necessity because of work, it would be irresponsible to believe that schools do not play a tremendous role in children's development. Humans are social creatures, and social creatures learn best by imitation or in groups, meaning that the more that they are around others, the better that they are learning. Therefore, it would make sense that children are better at developing and learning things like social skills in schools, rather than at home where they can spend long periods of time alone with no one to speak to.
I Will Not Contradict Myself !

:O LETTERS !!! :D Lmosbpib2ibfnIPBnfoejniNEIFPKN2 ipkdneipo2kwnqmPI;DKN3EIWPKpidfn 3p2qikPIDBN3EPOIK;HNidhnpdp2ihpdrihvip2nhri Hahaha :D Supercalifragilisticexpiadodocious ! :p
I Will Not Contradict Myself !

Q.1 Are you a liberal ? A.1 Yes Q.2 Are you Conservative ? A.2 No Q.3 Are you libertarian ? A.3 Yes Q.4 Do you agree with this statement? "Corporations should be taxed." A.4 Yes Q.5 Do you think an income tax is necessary? A.5 Yes Q.6 Do you agree with this statement? "corporations are people?" A.6 Yes Q.7 Are you republican? A.7 No Q.8 Are you Democrat? A.8 Yes Q.9 Are you independent(unaffiliated)? A.9 If you mean am I an independent person then yes I am. I don't know any kind of political ideology that is labeled "Independent". Q.10 Do you agree with this statement? "I believe corporations should be allowed a voice in government(Super PAC's, lobbying, etc.)." A.10 Yes
I Will Not Contradict Myself !

I accept the rules with one more rule that should i feel should be added, you must answer all questions(as that was never stated). My questions are as follows 1)Are you liberal? 2) Are you conservative? 3) Are you libertarian? 4) Do you agree with this statement? "Corporations should be taxed." 5) Do you think an income tax is necessary? 6) Do you agree with this statement? "corporations are people?" 7) Are you republican? 8) Are you Democrat? 9) Are you independent(unaffiliated)? 10) Do you agree with this statement? "I believe corporations should be allowed a voice in government(Super PAC's, lobbying, etc.)."
I Will Not Contradict Myself !

I've recently seen a couple of these debates, and I think it will be fun to participate in one. ==Rules== 1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers. 2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No. 3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-4, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5. 4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken. 5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins. 6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees with my rules. I look forward to a great debate round whoever accepts :')
should gay people be able to adoped kids

My opponents last argument is very vague, but I shall not be too harsh to him as he has acknowledged this. "if 2 guys got married then thats not illagel bt rapping people" In certain areas, such as many areas of the US, same-sex marriage is still banned / illegal. Something is either illegal or not, it cannot be in between. "So if gays want to adoped kids then let them live there life they just have t live with people laughing at them and after a wiley then they will get use to peple laughing at them." Yes, it probably would be fair - that doesn't make it legal. "So if gays want to adoped kids then let them live there life they just have t live with people laughing at them and after a wiley then they will get use to peple laughing at them." Yet again, this is rights vs. the need to prevent certain rights - if I wanted to walk the streets naked, this would be illegal. We cannot do everything we want to. Such is the nature of society. P.S. My opponent has still not negated my arguments regarding God's approval of same-sex marriage and/or adoption, or my argument regarding physical impossibilities. -Closing Statement- I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, as well as attempting to refute my arguments to the best of his ability. However, he has failed to negate my arguments or prove and validate his own - it therefore seems only logical that I have won this debate. Thank you.
should gay people be able to adoped kids

o. kyou are right about all you said and im sorry ifim not doing this very well im just starting to debate and i love debate becuse my broter does it. true we dot kow if god made adam and steve but we do know that people should be able to have a happy life if there gay or not because if 2 guys got married then thats not illagel bt rapping people and you could go to jail for rapping someone you can go to jail for murring a guy if your a guy. i could do the same thig to your mother so it would still be fair. So if gays want to adoped kids then let them live there life they just have t live with people laughing at them and after a wiley then they will get use to peple laughing at them. o. k i probely sucke this debate up but it was fun debateing for the first time on the internet.
should gay people be able to adoped kids

Your all right about this but if people are making us learn about god then there has 2 be one" I'm fairly certain this is in the same league of thinking as "If Mr. Hitler is telling me the Jews are an inferior race and we should exterminate everyone who isn't an Aryan, it must be so". I don't think I need to tell you where that got us. "if he made Adam and eve then we don't know if he made Adam and Steve." There is "evidence" in the bible that God made Adam and Eve - there is no evidence that God made "Adam and Steve". Infact, there are multiple references in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. The Pope, the supposed word of God, consistently says that homosexuality is wrong and that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. You are contradicting your own argument. If I can direct you to: http://findarticles.com... for evidence of this. P.S. You have still failed to prove the existence of God, therefore your initial argument is still invalid. "if they don't make adopting kids wrong then people will get used gay people adopting" See my first refute of this round. This would be like saying "If they don't make me stabbing you in the back and raping your mother wrong, people will get used to me stabbing you in the back and raping your mother". It still doesn't make it right. "well there was a man that had I baby so he/she had the right organs to have a baby" Despite the fact you have provided zero evidence of this, I think I am aware of the case you are suggesting. The "Man" in that case wasn't a man, it was a woman who was made pregnant before having a sex change. Completely irrelevant to gay adoption, unless you can prove this actual has anything to do with the argument. "so if people want to be gay then let them be gay" This isn't an argument about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, this is an argument about gay adoption. "OK going back to the god subject how do you think this world was made we just didn't pop up here like stupid magic" Yet again, this isn't an argument about whether God exists, this is an argument about gay adoption. You used the argument about God allowing people to do what they want, I asked you to prove God exists in order to allow this. You still haven't.
should gay people be able to adoped kids

Your all right about this but if people are making us learn about god then there has 2 be one and if he made adam and eve then we dont know if he made adam and steve. if they dont make adopteing kids wrong then people will get usteu gay pepole adopting. well there was a man that had I baby so he/she had the right organs to have a baby. so if people wnt to be gay then let them be gay. o.k going back to the god subject how do you think this world was made we just didnt pop up here like stupid magic
should gay people be able to adoped kids

Should gay people be able to adopt kids?" - I stand against the positive of this argument. As there appears to be no burden of proof, I will negate my opponents arguments. "it called A free countrey god let them do what ever they want" Of course it's called a "free country" (I am assuming you mean the US). However, there need to be limits within any country - this is why we have laws. This argument is invalid and out of context. Secondly, as there is no proof of God, there is no proof of anything letting "them do what ever they want". You therefore have to prove the existence of God for this argument to stand. "jst like a guy and a girl haveing a kid" Completely wrong. a) A man and a woman are physically capable of having children, since they both have the neccesary organs for reproduction (the X and the Y if you will). Gay couples, both female and male, cannot have children dependently - it would be a physical impossibility. If they are relying on others to reproduce, this becomes an entirely different matter. b) "A girl is any female human from birth through childhood and adolescence to attainment of adulthood. The term may also be used to mean a young woman.[1] A "guy" (by which I assume you mean a man) and a "girl" having a child would not be normal - this would be paedophilia. A shall await your rebuttal.
Guns in America: You need one

Hello! As I do agree that some instances, you don't need a gun for self-defense, but I am going to defend those who feel it is a need to own a gun for their safety. As well all do know most of the mass shootings are cause my assault rifles that the left would like to ban. If you have a gun then you feel safe, but as of right now I would like to answer any questions that you may have!
Guns in America: You need one

Yes, if you have a gun you feel safe. But really DO YOU NEED ONE!? It's a vicious cycle: I need a gun incase some random psycho comes into my house and shoots all of my family. BUT IF GUNS WERE BANNED THERE WOULD BE NO SHOOTING IN THE FIRST PLACE! Anyway even if they were banned some would keep them anyway so help me America is screwed...Unless any suggestions?
The Christian scriptures support family planning techniques such as contraception and abortion.

Next I would like to point out that there is no confusion in my arguments between the Old and New Testaments or Judaism and Christianity: the fact is that the Old Testament is what Jesus Christ preached and, furthermore, Christianity is, essentially, just a sect of Judaism that outgrew its parent religion. Furthermore, Jesus was born a Jew, lived the life of a Jew and died as a Jew. When faced with personal dilemmas Jesus referred to the Hebrew Scriptures (Matt. 4:2-10, Deut. 8:3, 6:16, 6:13). When teaching, Jesus taught from the Hebrew Scriptures (Matt. 22:42-45). When admonishing, Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (Mk. 7:6-13). Plus, Jesus self-identified as a Jew (John 4:22) and as King of the Jews (Mk. 15:2). From his birth to his last Passover celebration (Luke 22:14-15), Jesus lived as a Jew. That's right, Jesus not only taught others how to live a Jewish life, he lived it himself. The outward signs of this were such things as wearing tzitzit (tassles) on his clothing (Luke 8:43, Matt. 14:36), to serve as a reminder of the commandments (Num. 15:37-39). He observed Passover (John 2:13) and went up to Jerusalem (Deut. 16:16). He observed Succot (John 7:2, 10) and went up to Jerusalem (John 7:14). He also observed Hanukah (John 10:22) and probably Rosh haShanah (John 5:1), going up to Jerusalem on both those occasions as well, even though it isn't commanded in the Torah. And Jesus' disciples were Jews (John 1:47, Matt. 20:25-26) and they called Jesus 'Rabbi' (John 4:31) and they sought his knowledge of the Torah and the Prophets (John 1:45). Moving on, my opponent reiterates the point I was making about coitus interuptus: the Bible does not condemn the practice as a form of contraception. In fact, nowhere in the Bible is there any condemnation of either contraception or abortion, both of which were practiced in ancient times. This would surely be an extraordinary oversight in such a comprehensive collection of scriptures if these practices were not supported by the clerics who wrote the Bible. After all, every aspect of daily life is prescribed in the Bible: "thou shallt" and "thou shallt not" will be familiar refrains to anybody who has read even small parts of the book. Clearly, the implication of the lack of condemnation of family planning techniques illustrates that the Catholics have got it wrong again (just like they did with their model of the universe with the earth at the centre and numerous other blunders) and that the Bible supports the practice of contraception and abortion. Thank you.
The Verification Principle is Sound

PrefaceI do a lot of ethics debates and things of that nature, but I would like to discuss a topic that is perhaps a little more esoteric and philosophical. To accept this debate, you must've already complete 2 debates. The ELO voting floor on this debate has been set at 2,000.Full TopicThe Verification Principle is SoundTermsSound - free from error, illogic, and fallacyThe Verification Principle - that a sentence only has cognitive meaning if it is analytically or empirically verifiable: (a) empirical verification involves using one's senses to confirm or disconfirm the statement; (b) analytic verification involves using truths of definition or truths of logic (e.g. syllogistic deduction) to confirm or disconfirm the statement. So, for example, I can empirically confirm that my dog is brown simply by observing it with my eyes, just as I can analytically confirm that all bachelors are unmarried by logically examining what a bachelor is. In other words, all cognitively meaningful claims are testable.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is on Pro8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro waivesThanks......to whomever accepts; I look forward to a philosophical, fun exchange.
South Africa will reduce road fatalities by 50% by 2020 as per the Decade of Action for Road Safety

A research means finding bases to develop your own thoughts not presenting someone"s ideas as your own without acknowledging them. More than 50% of your speech consisted of someone"s ideas and you failed to acknowledge them and I did that for you. The pillars will contribute to global reduction of fatalities but some of them since they"ve been achieved in South Africa as indicated will be wasting financial resource to perfect them as they contribute the least to the south African fatalities case. AARTO legislation is still being improved to meet the specification and targets of South Africa. No final decisions have been made regarding the system. Over the past Easter holidays fatalities crash reduced by 15.81% only during the first year Easter. Ask what will happen with the increased budget to the Transport department? What about the increased initiatives, first my opponent failed to provide substantial evidence to why South Africa won"t reduce its fatalities by 50% yet he acknowledged that fatalities will increase. I provided a proof that 15% this year and the same in the next seven years will surely reduce fatalities till below 50%. I deserve to win because I presented the best case scenario for my site and showed the weakness of my opponent. Furthermore my opponent is an amateur debater without a debating style. His speech doesn"t have a clear introduction, case or conclusion. He assume the minimum knowledge to his argument.