BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People that drive electric vehicles care about the Earth more than people that drive non-hybrid cars

Although your point is understandable, it's simply not true. First off, I'd like to point out that people who drive electric cars care about Earth and the planet's welfare an extremely large amount. If someone is willing to give that large of an investment into an issue such as that, they're obviously going to care about it a lot. So, if someone cared about the environment that much (which is an extremely big amount), but couldn't afford a hybrid car, do you seriously think they're going to drive around in a car, knowing that they're polluting the Earth and destroying what they care about so much? What you fail to realize is that there are many other different modes of transportation for getting around. And not only are these modes of transportation more cost-effective, they also pollute a whole lot less. Some of these may include walking, riding a bike, taking the public bus, etc, etc. If someone cared enough about the Earth that if they had the money to afford such a humongous investment as a hybrid car, but didn't have the money, they'd use a different mode of transportation to get where they needed to go.
People that drive electric vehicles care about the Earth more than people that drive non-hybrid cars

I've heard some say that people who drive electric vehicles, care about the Earth more than people that drive non-hybrid cars that grossly pollute our planet. I disagree. I think many of these people care just as much, if not more, but cannot afford to purchase an expensive electric vehicle. The automotive industry hasn't made enough progress for electric vehicles to be affordable by the general public. Many people also have to commute long distances and an electic car either can't operate on the freeway for safety reasons or it cannot make the necessary journey.
Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

Could you please explain what part of my statistics are anecdotal? And please elaborate on how my statistics are anecdotal."When tested on rabbits, 10 out of 25 tested had were wrong. 40% error rate.""Explain wrong."If you read the article it states that they misclassified 10 out of 25 test chemicals."Cost not shown, cost by comparison not shown. Claim invalid."The article that tells about the cost of alternatives didn't go into detail but that doesn't mean my claim is invalid."In a recent evaluation, one customer saved up to $50,000 annually, in shipping costs, for a single compound when using the Corrositextest to define the Packing Group instead of relying on pH. In addition to the reduction in shipping charges, additional cost savings are found in the areas of workplace safety and MSDS development."http://www.invitrointl.com..."This debate is a rather easy win for you pro.Just provide me with decent sources and show me an opportunity cost scenario."Maybe stop acting like you know what your talking about and present your reasons on way we should continue animal testing.
Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

I was too, I misread the debate as being 2days instead of 24hours. *(which is a rather short time for me as I was busy, especially with pdfs and such just linked in a general throw-out). Well since it's 5 rounds I think we still have time for what is a rather simple debate(seriously, 5 rounds!? Why?). --------------- My opponent does not use statistics correctly. His statistics are anecdotal evidence, i.e. using a small sample size to generalize a much larger population. http://en.wikipedia.org... I'd also like to address the statistics in general. Percent error, percent accuracy, and cost are all improperly explained. EpiSkin: I can't even find that source on that but ok. Epiderm: "When tested on rabbits, 10 out of 25 tested had were wrong. 40% error rate." Explain wrong. -Are they just invalid because of improper testing? -Do different rabbits show different symptoms? -Etc. etc. It needs an explanation. InVitro International"s Corrositex -Cost not shown, cost by comparison not shown. Claim invalid. This debate is a rather easy win for you pro. Just provide me with decent sources and show me an opportunity cost scenario. Also, if you provide sources with multiple pages, please state what page. The audience is not going to shift though 3+ pages of science journals to
Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

"Why it is unnecessary" The reason testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary is because there are plenty of other alternatives. The other alternatives are less costly and more accurate. "What other alternatives there are. " EpiSkin- EpiSkin is a model of reconstructed skin. When tested on, it predicts corrosivity and irritation. Its accuracy is between 90-95%. EpiDerm- Cultured human skin cells. When tested on, it can detect chemical irritants. It detected all chemical irritants. When tested on rabbits, 10 out of 25 tested had were wrong. 40% error rate. To test toxicity, animals were forced to ingest chemicals where 50% of the animals died. As an alternative, donated human tissue is tested on to target where specific organs are affected. This alternative is 85% accurate. Testing on animals is 65% accuarate. InVitro International"s Corrositex- Non animal testing is less costly and less time consuming. InVitro can detect corosivity in 3 minuted to four hours. Animal testing can take two to for weeks. DakDak is used to test the effectivness of sunscreen. It can give results in days where animal testing can take months. It can also test five to six products for less than half the cost. Animals testing costs million of dollars where as alternatives are a fraction of the cost. Just to add, animal testing is harmful to the enviroment becuase of the disposal of so many dead animals. Not to drone on, here are plenty more alternatives. . http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org... It provides alternatives that test skin sensitisation, carcinigenity, toxicokinetics, and reproductive toxicity. . http://www.neavs.org...
Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

I have no real need to argue that it is ethical as i'm sure the general argument would just devolve into basic animal rights and get further away from the topic. As for it being unnecessary, I will of course argue that Con should provide: -Why it is unnecessary -What other alternatives there are. -Why we should use those alternatives instead. This should provide a more simplistic process without the Con needing to explain the meaning of life while trying to make his points. Anyway, lets do this!
Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

Well since my opponent forfeited this round I think i'll just put a few points to clarify my stance. 1. We use animals for testing because they allow the widest range for testing per sample, and they are the most efficient means monetarily. A) They allow us to test for toxicity in a "life cycle" that is, to test what effect it a sample could have over-time. B) There are so many things that if not tested correctly can lead to severe consequences on humans. Animal testing right now is the only sure way to test these chemicals. If left to alternatives at the current state, there are too many openings in which a toxic agents could pass and harm humanity. 2. We do not use alternatives right now for several reasons A) The alternatives cost more. B) The alternatives do not allow full-body test. C) Many of the alternatives at the moment are not validated and in the early testing phase. I'd also like to note that the cosmetic industry is for profit. If the alternative treatments were cheaper or more efficient even by a reasonable amount the researchers would use them instead in a heartbeat. If the researchers only had to use a small vial or kit instead of animal maintenance, they would. It's just not at that stage right now and the alternatives just don't have the range or efficiency of animal testing. Thanks for the debate, sorry for the forfeits on either side, vote whoever you want.
Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

Your claims are anecdotal because they are using a small sample size to claim a larger one. For instance you use the "10 out of 25 tested rabbits." Among the thousands of test conducted, you are using a small case to falsely state that this is the average. Note: My opponent is now asking me to read entire articles and somehow debate them as if any article posted is supposed to get an entire debate. I am not responsible for addressing every article presented in it's entirety, just the quote in question. I am also not here to debate copy-pasted material. My opponent does not present the cost nor the cost of the alternatives but claims they are "cheaper". "In a recent evaluation, one customer saved up to $50,000 annually, in shipping costs, for a single compound when using the Corrositextest to define the Packing Group instead of relying on pH. In addition to the reduction in shipping charges, additional cost savings are found in the areas of workplace safety and MSDS development." Anecdotal evidence and evidence from the seller fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org... It would be like me arguing Allstate is better as a whole but you posting "this customer saved 15% switching to Geico." The link you provided came directly from the people selling the alternative(invitro), it would be foolish for anyone in any debate to automatically trust the company selling a product like that. My opponent also fails to realize that this is one case out of thousands. "Maybe stop acting like you know what your talking about and present your reasons on way we should continue animal testing." [Note: My opponent uses a personal attack] 1. It is more cost effective than the alternative. 2. Many of the alternatives are not valid at the moment, some are not even in the stages of validation.[1] http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org... 3. There are studies which the alternatives cannot perform, such as full-body reaction and the like. There are currently no alternatives that can simulate this.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Suppose that for a function f(x), y = 1 if and only if x is irrational and y = 0 if and only if x is rational. The area under the f(x) is between x = 0 and x = 1 is called Z. W is equal to the number marking the second rule that contains a word with a "-bunt" ending when correctly translated from English into Latin. For the rule in Round 1 numbered by the integer closest to (e + W)^(Z), is the truth value of the consequent of the conditional false?2. Will refrigerators still come in cardboard boxes in the year 3,000?3. Is the truth-value of the statement "If 2 + 2 = 5, then today is Wednesday" true?4. Suppose that F may be done if and only if F can possibly be done. Z is the number of even number rules of the debate that are not verifiably true in the current evidential state. Is Z equal to 4?5. Is the answer to this question different than the answer to question #9?6. Does God exist?7. Suppose that for a natural deduction system Q, "[(A --> B) --> (~A v B)]" is a theorem. Does Q contain an independent inference rule of double negation elimination?8. In the popular stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, does the character Sherlock Holmes have a number of kidneys n such that for all x, y, and z, "[x^(n) + y^(n) = z^(n)]" is false?9. Is the answer to this question the same as the answer to question #5?10. Suppose that p is the proposition that rules must express norms and q is the proposition that rules must express facts. Suppose that "~(p <--> q)" is true. Is p true?
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: . http://en.wikipedia.org...... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Suppose that for a function f(x), y = 1 if and only if x is irrational and y = 0 if and only if x is rational. The area under the f(x) is between x = 0 and x = 1 is called Z. W is equal to the number marking the second rule that contains a word with a "-bunt" ending when correctly translated from English into Latin. For the rule in Round 1 numbered by the integer closest to (e + W)^(Z), is the truth value of the consequent of the conditional false?Yes.2. Will refrigerators still come in cardboard boxes in the year 3,000?No.3. Is the truth-value of the statement "If 2 + 2 = 5, then today is Wednesday" true?No. 4. Suppose that F may be done if and only if F can possibly be done. Z is the number of even number rules of the debate that are not verifiably true in the current evidential state. Is Z equal to 4?No. 5. Is the answer to this question different than the answer to question #9?Yes. 6. Does God exist? Yes.7. Suppose that for a natural deduction system Q, "[(A --> B) --> (~A v B)]" is a theorem. Does Q contain an independent inference rule of double negation elimination?No. 8. In the popular stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, does the character Sherlock Holmes have a number of kidneys n such that for all x, y, and z, "[x^(n) + y^(n) = z^(n)]" is false?No.9. Is the answer to this question the same as the answer to question #5?No. 10. Suppose that p is the proposition that rules must express norms and q is the proposition that rules must express facts. Suppose that "~(p q)" is true. Is p true?No.
Abortion is wrong!

It is tragic and yea they'll take the risks for it but if they baby would be born sure it'll be difficult but it'll also bring joy. Holding the baby and living it are many great things that can come from a child how they look up to you and how they love you is an amazing feeling that I think everyone should have a chance to experience that. And you right Abortion will never change it's been around since the Ancient Greeks and Romans but we can at least try there is no shame in that. When the Roman emperor Septimius Severus banned abortion the rates dropped. Every child is a gift from God and should be like so. What if that baby that was going to be Aborted turned out to be the next Albert Einstein or the next Micheal Jordan, We need to give the the chance to follow a path of their own. As for you comments its ok they didn't come across like that. And thank you again I enjoyed the argument it was very entertaining.
Abortion is wrong!

Right I understand what you are saying about the fact that ever lose of life is tragic however it will be more tragic for the woman because of the fact she has to get rid of her child which isn't even developed yet and it hasn't gained any feelings towards it's parents yet. And yes everybody should have the chance to live however some people don't and things like abortion are never going to be changed. Also an abortion clearly s expensive but if a woman has made that choice and is willing to pay that much money then let her do it. It's going to be more easier for her to get rid of her child rather than having her child and maybe even regretting and I don't want this to come the wrong way because I truly believe people should feel blessed to have the ability to have children however I am for Abortion and always will be. There are many factors of abortion which is extremely positive and there is extremely bad ones however if a woman wants to get rid of her child she should have the opportunity to because at the end of the day it's the woman's choice and how she feels therefore abortion is right. Yes, there is also many risks that woman will have to take but if she's willing to take them, let her. Thank you for such a good debate, I've really enjoyed it. I would just like to say that some of my comments may have come across inappropriate however I didn't mean it to and I do believe that women should treasure the fact they are going to have a child however not everyone woman will and every woman needs to do what will make her happy in the long run.
Abortion is wrong!

Yes it is important every lose of life is tragic, nobody should have to lose their life everybody should have a chance to live and live into old age. Not to mention Abortion's are expensive; How much an abortion will cost a woman depends on how far along she is in her pregnancy. The National Abortion Federation gives general estimates of what a woman should expect to pay. Early in her first trimester, an abortion will cost somewhere between $350 " $500, As she progresses through the pregnancy, the cost will increase. After 20 weeks, she should expect to pay at least $1,000, if not several thousand dollars. Many women also have to travel to get an abortion, so they would need to add travel costs into their totals as well. When t comes to these costs then comes the argument that tax payers should pay for abortion which is also wrong. I work for my money and why should money go to someone's mistake when i earned it for myself. Not to mention there is more than just breast cancer at risk for women; "Women who have had abortions are also found to have increased risks of getting liver, ovarian, and cervical cancers. "Many women who get an abortion have had one before (about half, according to the Guttmacher Institute). How many of them are told that repeat abortions are found to increase the risk of premature birth? "Women who have an abortion are more likely to get endometriosis and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. "Women who have undergone an abortion have higher mortality rates than those who have not. "Abortion brings a large number of major physical complications. These include, but are not limited to, life-threatening complications such as uterine perforation, cervical lacerations, and excessive bleeding. "Women who have had an abortion are at much higher risk for mental health disorders. These include anxiety, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and suicidal behavior " which is shown to increase 155% after an abortion. "Women are more likely to become victims of domestic violence after undergoing an abortion . http://www.lifenews.com...
Abortion is wrong!

Abortion isn't wrong! There is many people in America alive and living healthy therefore it doesn't matter if women have abortions because there is more women having children than having abortions. I would also like to make the point that 61% of abortions in America are done before the foetus is 9 weeks old therefore you aren't taking a life away because a life hasn't even developed yet. In America there is roughly 1.2 million abortions per year, 2% of women have abortions(1). That is a large number however 4 million children are born(1), therefore if a woman wants an abortion, she should have one. Also there is shocking health risks from having an abortion however a woman will do what a woman wants and I have been reading through a lot of information mainly about the breast cancer and abortion. Yes there is only links, unless there is certain proof that a woman is suffering really badly from breast cancer from abortion, I would like to see proof.There is other affects however they're easily dealt with, with the right care and treatment for them. Please name your sources as I am intrigued to look at them! http://www.operationrescue.org...(1)
Abortion is wrong!

Abortion is wrong. Reason being is that we aren't machines in which we come to life part by part, we are concieved and alive in an instant over 56 million american children have died by abortion thats 56 american million people that won't grow up and experince life. Why deny somebody life to deny them love to deny them freedom. Not to mention Abortion has also claimed the lives of the woman who did want the abortion;LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute commissioned a study lead by Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which found a link between abortion and cancer: "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women." The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters." so now not only your killing a child your putting yourself at risk too.
Abortion is wrong!

I completely think that abortion is right and people shouldn't judge women for making that choice to have an abortion. As being a woman, I see both sides to this story however abortion is right. The definition: Abortion- the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks(1). I would like to start off saying that the if the abortion is taken place before 18 weeks the foetus is unable to feel the pain. Also the foetus isn't developed in the early stages of any pregnancy therefore you are not killing a child. People like to say that by having it an abortion it is the same as killing a child however it isn't, until that child has been born it hasn't been 'brought into this world' therefore there is no harm in having an abortion. The foetus hasn't created any feelings for the mother and father as it has never even seen them or been felt by them so it's not killing a child because if it was, why isn't it illegal? My second point is that, you do not know that woman hasn't been raped or even wanted to have sex therefore she may want to get rid of the child rather than bringing it up in a world where it's dad is a rapist or a man that isn't very nice. People will say that the mother should give birth to the child then give it up for adoption however what if that mother gets attached to that child? She may not want to keep it but may feel extremely guilty giving it to complete strangers. What if the mother gives her child up for adoption however, in the future the child wants to find its real parents? What will that mother tell her child when she does find her? Lastly, that woman may have been forced to have an abortion and it may be against her will. She may think abortion is wrong however her partner or the person she had sexual intercourse with may force her to get rid of that child and may find it extremely hard to get rid of her child. No-one will ever know that reasons for that woman to get an abortion apart from her and her selfish partner, who will probably be extremely self centered. You shouldn't judge a woman just because she is having an abortion. Yes, some woman do have abortions simply because they don't want their child and yes that is selfish however it's that woman's choice so people should let her do it. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abortionR06;(1)