BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Testing

Since I started this debate, and had an extra round to debate, where my opponent didn't, I promised him I wouldn't post an actual argument here.So I will just sum up why I feel you should vote for me in this debate.****VOTERS****CONDUCT: PRO. I Feel I am deserving of the conduct point for several reason. The first is that my opponent completely dis-regaurds 75% of my arguments. Quite a few times throughout this debate my opponent will say that I lack evidence for something, that I completely did add in round 1-2. For example he said that I didn't provide proof of animals being treated properly at the testing centers, where in round 2, I dedicated over 1500 characters to explaining how they were treated properly. This is not the only time however he completely ignores evidence and arguments. Twice he says there is no proof that animal testing even helps humans. Again, in R2, I made another 1500 or so characters to explaining all of the diseases it has cured, and posted links to sites that testify to this. Ignoring arguments is completely conduct worthy, especially when he calls me out for not making them, why I did in fact make them. The next thing that is completely annoying, is that all of my opponents arguments are from unfounded sites, and a plethora of his text is actually copy and pasted. No quotes, no source, etc, that says the words are even from the site he C/P'ed from. I called him out on this in R2, after he copies something of the homepage of PETA. Based on several factors, you have to give me the conduct point.S/G: I have spell checked, and grammar checked each of my responses. While at times I had a hard time reading the Con's arguments due to both spelling and grammar mistakes. Vote on this how you will though.ARGUMENTS: My opponent completely dis-regards my philosophic principle of Utilitarianism. Not once does he make a point referring to how stopping animal testing will benefit EVERYONE. I have proven that animal testing would be very detrimental to humanity if it was dis-continued, and proved how it is even helpful to the animals involved. I have also proven how even with all that aside, we need to look over are own race before others. There are billions of animals in the world. Most of the animals we test on are born and bread in our very own labs, so it's not like were decreasing a population, or destroying a species. Over all I have shown that there are extreme harms in stopping animal testing.SOURCES: My sources Are from medical sites that have benefited and cured diseases from animal testing. All of my information is completely 100% accurate. My opponents arguments either come from a biased liberal site, with un-proven information, or from articles on the opinion of a like minded individual. They are purely emotion based, and lacking of substance. My evidence is hard evidence that shows that animal testing is the only way to benefit majorly by learning how to over come diseases.It is for all these reasons, and more, that I feel I have won this debate.I thank my opponent for the time and effort he has put forth into this debate, and wish him luck in the voting period. Thankyou!
Television is projecting the wrong message to youth and setting the wrong expectations.

Hello, Blond guy. This is only a debate for debating, and I can see by the caps lock you are getting slightly emotional. First I want to criticize something you said and clarify what I meant. "-The mom wouldn't be a responsible parent if she allows her older sibling to show the younger sibling whatever is on T.V."The point is, the mom DOESNT know what the kids are watching becuase she TRUSTS the older one, but the odler one is independant. This is merely a falsified scenario. Next I want to mention some statistics involving television watching, showing how wide a demographic this problem is. For instance, the percentage of U.S. household with at least one television is 98% The percent of children between ages 2-5 with televisions in their room are 25%. The most shocking is the percentage of 4-6 year olds. This age group was asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers. The majority of the children chose television. This shows how involved children are in TV, and I do recognize that children can see anything bad anywhere, but the MOST common source is television. Besides, when are young children without the supervision of adults the most? At home. Thank you and I await your Rebuttal.
Television is projecting the wrong message to youth and setting the wrong expectations.

"most people dont know what Y-7 is, or Y-7FV. Some don't even know what MA or TV-14 means." --------It takes 5 minutes to figure it out on Time Warner Cable, they even have ads explaining how to control what their kids watch on T.V. Once you activate the parental control, no inappropriate shows, movies, etc. will appear. "When an older brother turns on the TV and his mom tells him that his small siblings are allowed to watch with him." ---------The mom wouldn't be a responsible parent if she allows her older sibling to show the younger sibling whatever is on T.V. And my point still stands that children these days can get unsuitable content ANYWHERE!
Television is projecting the wrong message to youth and setting the wrong expectations.

Hello, blond guy. I am glad we finally get to debate. first off I want to point out something you said. "However, it is the parents' fault if they do not educate their children or deprive them from watching certain programs. Today we have ratings, warnings and what not." Yes, it is true that there is a rating system for the television programs and they are often very hard to access. Often you have to press a few buttons to display the rating, and even if they do appear in the corner they are often hard to interpret, as most people dont know what Y-7 is, or Y-7FV. Some dont even know what MA or TV-14 means. This is what lends itself to confusion regarding ratings. Once again, this is what children end up watching today. drawn in by the fantasmical music, the fast paced scenes and all the blood, they have almost automatically gained an audience of young people all over the world. Television is a necessity in most peoples lives, from the people who get their news that way to the people that watch their favorite sitcoms. When an older brother turns on the TV and his mom tells him that his small siblings are allowed to watch with him. He then proceeds to wathc whatever he wants to wathc, except his siblings are now watching and are thus exposed. this happens all over and is often a method of showing material unsuitable for children to children. Thank you and i await your rebuttal.
Television is projecting the wrong message to youth and setting the wrong expectations.

Although I agree with your topic sentence I disagree with the evidence provided. True - Television contains content not suitable for children. However, it is the parents' fault if they do not educate their children or deprive them from watching certain programs. Today we have ratings, warnings and what not. As a youth myself, like you, I can just go outside and take the New York City subway train to any neighborhood along the lines of Bedford Stuyvesant, Jamaica, Bushwick, and see things that don't play on T.V. till after 12 o'clock. I can also go to the library or use the school computers to go on the internet, which we all know is filled with uncensored content. Good luck on this debate!
Television is projecting the wrong message to youth and setting the wrong expectations.

Nowadays, all that you see on television are things that are not setting good examples for young people. They are showcasing murders, guns, sexual relations, and the like. You see all the stuff that parents DONT want their kids seeing. As a youth, i see all this and know what it is like. For my opening argument I would like to bring up the easiness of sitting on the couch and wathcing the tube. You do nothing but stare, and occasionally showcase some emotions. You do nothing, basically. All you have to do is press one button to turn it on and one button to change the channel. It seems like there is never anything on, or so people say. There is ALWAYS something on, just nothing with violence or gore. Much like Ellen Degeneres, Tony Danza, Martha Stewart and Regis and Kelly, there is no violence, no guns, and no murder. Most young people dont want to watch this, "crap." I dont mind it, but this is not a personal debate. I dont want to use up all of my resources but i want to close it up by saying this: For the most part what is projected to america's youth is the wrong message. Thank you and good luck to my challenger.
Television is projecting the wrong message to youth and setting the wrong expectations.

"The point is, the mom DOESNT know what the kids are watching" -------My point is that if she doesn't find out than she suffers the risk of her kids watching inappropriate stuff on T.V. -------You also said I was getting emotional. No, the caps lock is for emphasis, kinda like your caps lock on "doesn't" "For instance, the percentage of U.S. household with at least one television is 98% The percent of children between ages 2-5 with televisions in their room are 25%. The most shocking is the percentage of 4-6 year olds. This age group was asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers. The majority of the children chose television." --------Those are pretty disturbing, but I'm not surprised. The thing is it is not the T.V.'s fault because they spend a lot of money trying to get parents aware that not everything on T.V. is appropriate. The rating system alone costs millions of dollars. Also, many kids watch inappropriate things as little such as W.W.E. and M.T.V., then grow up to find it stupid and become doctors. It's not as great of an influence as walking the streets or going online can be.
Implementing communism will negatively impact society

1. You say that communism is dangerous to the liberties of people, but do we see people expressing their liberties in our current "capitalist/democratic" system? When you say "all power" I take it you are talking about a few people having all state power, in communism everyone has power, the government have to do what the people ask for, otherwise they are kicked out, so this is not "all power", the power of the government belongs to the majority. 2. I sincerely hope you do not just work for money. People will be productive if they have something to work for, which is true- people work for what they need and for the benefit of society. Work in communism can be enjoyable and less tiring than we see today as there will be more workers. You suggest that the free market (which is part of capitalism) will impair the economy, but in communism there is no value on things, so there is no economy, people take what they need. Do you believe that all people(7 billion humans) genuinely have a chance at becoming as wealthy as Bill Gates? (sources)
Implementing communism will negatively impact society

Implementing communism will negatively impact society in a number of ways:1. An All-powerfull communist state is dangerous to the liberties of the people, and is guarenteed to result is massacres, coups, and corruption since- power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 2. Removing the free market will destroy work incentives, reducing productivity as well as impairing the economy. Fact is the goveronment is terrible at finance, let aloe running an entire economy; "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand."- Milton Freidman.
Implementing communism will negatively impact society

Communism as a system (as described in the communist manifesto) would be a Utopian way of living for everyone, we all work for what we need, there is little to no greediness(1), society advances more than we see today (money is needed for research). Also, if every healthy adult is employed there is no need for one to work as much as they do in today's capitalist system. There are many other benefits. If you are to argue a point, please explain it. (1) - https://www.reference.com...
Implementing communism will negatively impact society

"You say that communism is dangerous to the liberties of people, but do we see people expressing their liberties in our current "capitalist/democratic" system? When you say "all power" I take it you are talking about a few people having all state power, in communism everyone has power, the government have to do what the people ask for, otherwise they are kicked out, so this is not "all power", the power of the government belongs to the majority."How will a communist society where the goveronment has more powerr somehow keep polititians who want to be dictators and don't care about the people outof office? This idea which you are having is called democracy, and most countries today have it, yet this idealism which you are claiming would cme true simply isn't the case for most countries. How can communism fixthis issue of corruption in democracy? What would be different?I'd like to think that I can just trust my life with a bunch of beurocrats, but I can't because I know beter. Fact is the goveronment cannot be trusted with anything, that's why its supposed to be limited. "I sincerely hope you do not just work for money. People will be productive if they have something to work for, which is true- people work for what they need and for the benefit of society. Work in communism can be enjoyable and less tiring than we see today as there will be more workers."Some people work soley for the benefit of society, not most; besides, we all should be able to as individuels manage our own finance, our own work, and our own consumption, after all- why knows what's best for you better thaan you yourself? "You suggest that the free market (which is part of capitalism) will impair the economy, but in communism there is no value on things, so there is no economy, people take what they need." No, the free market is the economy, and if this were implemented you would have a massive problem with mooching- in fact, there were towns in the early 1st century C.E. that went commie after Paul the apostle came through them. Jamestown, a communist settlement in the 1600's, had the exact same issue, so their leaders, the apostle paul and Captain John Smith came out with a solution and it was the exact same solution:"If a man does not work neither shall heeat." - Captain John Smith, 2 Thesselonians 3:10"Do you believe that all people(7 billion humans) genuinely have a chance at becoming as wealthy as Bill Gates? (sources)."If they have an idea that is as great an idea as him, they are as determined and hard working as him, and they get the same resources as him,then yes, every individuel one of them has just as good a shot as he did.
dogs should be classified as rodents

Just so you know, before we begin, rodents are a type of mammal. It would be nice if dogs could be classified as rodents. Unfortunately, they cannot, because animal classification is based on certain traits which an animal has. Rodents are small, with whiskers, and so on. Mice are rodents, as are rats, and squirrels. The largest known rodent is the capybara, which can grow to the size of a dog. While a simpleton like you may think that animals can be grouped according to character traits, animal classification is actually a very labor intensive process which is crucial to the understanding of the animal kingdom. Dogs cannot be classified as rodents because they are not rodents. https://en.wikipedia.org... I do not like dogs. They are stupid, they bark too much, they poop too much, and they're a whole lot meaner than cats. But they cannot be classified as rodents. Aristotle did not put them in the same group as us. We are primates, they are not primates. We are not very well related to them, but they are not very well related to mice. And, just so you know, when classifying animals, scientists do not include "Sneakiness" as a deciding factor. I await your next argument.
dogs should be classified as rodents

Dogs should be classified as rodents and not mammals. Now, you may think I'm crazy, but I have evidence that they are falsely labeled mammals. First off, they are sneaky little Lucifer spawns. For example, you might be making a pizza and lets say you have to take a bathroom break. So you go to the loo and go about your business and you're just enjoying the thought of you soon eating a delicious slice of warm, crisp pizza. Then you go into the kitchen and see your nasty dingo chomping down your food. I personally have experienced this, and I have firsthand experienced feeling that dogs are a disgrace to the mammal kingdom, and especially the human race. How could Aristotle put those disgusting creatures in the same classification as humans?
dogs should be classified as rodents

The biggest thing arislote taught me when he visitied my scchool, accompanied by his close friend steven hawkins, is to never give up on the idiots who dont undersrtant basic science. im a part of the new generation and all we can do is try to reteach the stupid elders and teach the kids younger than us to be intelligent, kind young folk. people like YOU are ruining thw world. im not even clicking that link. ive seen a mouse. in real life! it ran across my darn kithen while i was eating cereal. live action. in real life. with my OWN eyes. you say mice have hair on their tales, and you also call their tail hairs bristles. you silly crustacean dont you see? our teoth brushers have bristles. and youre saying mice have bristles on theyre tales? youre confusing yourself, man. they have not got 'bristles' on their tais. WHOA WHOA WHOA HOLD UP THERE MATE. WIKIHOW ARTICLES ARE FROMED BY PEOPLE WHO REALLY ARE EXPERTS ON WHAT THEYRE DOING. DONT YOU DARE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT AGAIN. chickens, cows, and pigs are classified as the meats". not "all you can eat cafe". that sounds stupid. SEAWEED IS AN OCEAN DWELLER AND ARE EDIBLE, THRERRORE IS SEAFOOD. YOU AER MELTING MY BRAIN WITH EVERY ARGUEMENT YOU TRY USING. im a actually working past the 8th grade science level. im much older nowadqays. im in fact a nasa scientist. we do a lot more than you think. ilumminats are working with us in the future too. for shrimp sake stop talking about the Wongs, they had nothing to do with this debate until you tagged them. I really am confused as to how you cant comprehend that rodents are rodents, mammals are mammals. What grade wherre you in when you droped out? Youre going down stinker. be ready to lose.
dogs should be classified as rodents

Youre reslly grindning my gears here bub. mice are NOT COVERED in hair. look at them. touch the tai. does their tail not count as a part if their body? because they have bald tails. which ARE part of the mouse body. i MEAN i only use wikihow and not wikipedia because i learned at school that wikipedia is not always a credible source. So the info youre providing may be invalid. I dont hate wikipedia, but it defiaantly sucks. RODENTS.ARE.CALLED.RODENTS,BECAUSE.THEY.ARE.NOT.MAMMALS idk why u keep bringi ng up the the mobility europeans because they were just part of a myth. i love tomatoes too though!! shrimp may be a crustation but theyre part of the seafood family, which is anything from a body of water that you eat, but yeah theyre all the same thing. shrimp are fish vrab is fsh, seaweed is fish. so basically all seafoood is called "fish".Also fyi, anemones are just anemic fish. whales are enlarged fish. theyre seafood, fish, NOT MAMMALS. this IS so easy and i dont know why youre making it soo hard. you act like youre such expert on the world but you cant get these simple facts right? Aristolt and stehpen hawkings are very good friends and have worked together many times as theyre both scientistific people. you are very indesicive to whoo you think will lose the debate. you are just to let you know. you look so deep into everything that you cant just understand the basic principles of science. and just to let you know ive got a degree in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade science, and also earth science and ive been well taught from my teachers. theyre al experts! my family tree is wong? stop trying to bring the china peple into this. do you think they care about a debate with some wisecracker trying to troll the internet? they dont so stop. please. kindergarten level thinking? frogs are amphibeans you nutcracker!!!!! ill let that one slide because im sure that was just a lil accident but you need to be on your toes for a debate against a kid with 9 science degrees, get your head in the game and do a bit f research before you go making silly claims. i never said that the scientist are really going to reclassify dogs, but i spoke with my nasa team about it and were havily considering a meeting with stephen because hes like the father of animal classifiaation.
dogs should be classified as rodents

How can somebody be so stupid. sure rodents have fur on their bodies, but like mice don't have fur on their tails. so they aren't mammals. they're rodents. idiot. not mammals cause they ant covered in hair. I don't do wikipedia, only wikihow. ps. an order is an authoritative command, direction, or instruction. stop going off track. tomatoes are poisonous you nugget. what do you think all that liquid inside of them is from? that's the result of harmful chemical reactions. a shrimp is a fish you're so animal racist.Stephen Hawkins and Aristotle came to my school to tell us about science when I was in 3rd grade, think I would know their fields since I shook their hands myself. ill tell you why you're Wong about my family tree. my REAL family tree that you're jus too dumb to even begin to understand. dogs and the big cats are big, fluffy, and cute. related.sea lions and lions are just like hence the reason they have lion in the names. sea lions and algae thrive in water. algae and frogs thrive in water.toads and grasshoppers hop HOW STUPIF CAN YOU BE TO NOT RECOGNIZE THIS WHERE DO YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK GEEEZ. grasshoppers and mice are small. cats and mice have play dates. Jerry you know?momma cats and kitties are very different, kittens are fresh out of the womb so. momma cats and puppies are cute fuzzy pets. related. you are so rude to be calling me a stupid fool. I'm only stating obvious facts that I see from really absorbing the world around me. dogs are rodents. why are you ttreating it like its just my opinion?
dogs should be classified as rodents

Just so YOU know, rodents are NOT mammals. Rodets are things like mice, rats, and chinchillas! I thank you for waiting so patiently. Alrighty lets get it going. Dogs can in fact be clasified as rodents. There are lots of dogs that are small and if you think about it they are small compared to us mammals such as wooly mammoths, elephants, and zebras. Dogs also have whiskers, silly pants. Another charecteristic that dogs have that qualify them for the rodent family is the incisors. animaldiversity. org/accounts/Rodentia/ I here do like dogs, although I firmly believe that they are in fact disgusting rodents. They can be very smart creatures and uh what a simpleton you are thinking all dogs are meaner than cats. What kind of nitwit says that! Excuse me lol I meant to say Steven Hawkins, not Aristotle! Im unsure of how I could have mistaken the first man to land on the moon for a rodent expert. Silly goose Telly! To counterclaim that "we are not very well related tp them, but they are not very well related to mice" goofiness; we are related to apes and chimps and such, they are related to things like lions, tigers, and leoperds, and they are related to sea lions, who are related to algae, who are related to frogs, who are related to toads who are related tp grasshoppers, who are related to mice, who are related to kittens, who are related to momma cats who are related to puppies, who are related to dogs! Just tell me if you need me to explain the family tree a bit more, it sure was a handful to type. One more thing here. You said sneakiness is not a deciding factor in classifying animals, but scientists classify animals based on charachteristics and uhmm sneakiness is a charachteristic.