BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is Valid

I almost don't feel the need to post anything. Neverthless I will. The existance of or non existance of The God of the bible which is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction is irrelevant to this debate. Indeed the God of the bible which is a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochisticand a capriciously malevolent bully is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is about >"The Bible is Valid"Not about the existance of any godPro has yet to make one argument to support the resolution that The Entire bible is a valid book. I've shown how jesus never existed. Conclusion. The Bible however it is most certiantly Not valid.
Dog fighting (See initial argument)

Hello, I would first like to explain the purpose of this debate before making my initial argument. I am a journalism minor, and one of the assignments I have over break is to hold a formal debate via social media in which I argue for a topic I am actually against (such as dog fighting). The purpose is to develop both research and debating skills, as well as learning to analyze two sides of an argument without prejudice. Let me be clear, I am really against dog fighting, but I will be arguing that it is NOT immoral or cruelty to animals, and I will be trying to win the debate. This debate will be exported as PDF and used in my final presentation in January (usernames will be redacted), so please don't accept this debate if you have a problem with this. I have set high word-limits, partially because of this introduction which I felt was important. Most of my arguments will not use the full 9000 characters, but feel free to take advantage of them if you need. This is more of a philosophical debate on morality than a scientific one, so we will be relying on logical reasoning in addition to statistics. Please try to use reliable sources when making factual claims (such as: x amount of dogs die every year from dog fighting). I have set this for 5 rounds, but if we both feel that we have said all there is to say by the third or fourth round, I will concede the argument for the sake of time. Would still like to see some comments though! Now I will begin by stating my 3 main points, and explaining my philosophy behind it: 1: Animals, by nature, are aggressive. Humans box and wrestle and smash into each other competing for balls (pardon the double entendre), Stray dogs will naturally fight each other, often to the death, because they are territorial. 2: Much like in competitive sports involving combat, dog fights are often stopped when one dog has shown complete dominance. The dogs are usually allowed to heal before they fight again. In many ways, these dogs are like the Mike Tysons and Joyce Gracies that we worship. 3: There are many dogs sitting in shelters who rarely see the light of day, and spend 22 hours a day in their cages. They might find being a gladiator who is well fed quite preferable. Dog fighting is not half as cruel as the way we treat livestock (and some humans), so it is really moot by comparison. Morality is completely relative.
Stricter entry requirements should be imposed on visitors from south of the border

.. because that is not the issue" before going on to discuss an entirely different subject: immigration into the United States. This is an innovative debate technique that I have not encountered before and I may well employ myself when the topic of discussion doesn't interest me! Just to be clear though, this debate actually concerns the proposal to restrict American health tourists placing an undue burden on the Canadian health service, and I duly reiterate that stricter entry requirements should be imposed on visitors from south of the border. Thank you.
Stricter entry requirements should be imposed on visitors from south of the border

Thanks for the subject to debate on.. I don't agree... because that is not the issue. The whole reason that immigration is an issue is because our economy is so bad, and we subsidize it. While maybe a fence would somewhat help... wouldn't it make more sense to stop subsidizing it? Stop giving them free healthcare, jobs etc. Get our economy moving and stop subsidizing it. That is the solution to the problem. Look back about 100-150 years ago? People came in ALL the time from Europe and it wasn't an issue. Its an issue now because our economy sucks and we subsidize immigration making them want to come over. That is my stance
Stricter entry requirements should be imposed on visitors from south of the border

Every day, hordes of people cross the county's southern border seeking to take advantage of better conditions on the other side - and this places a huge strain on public services such as health care provision. It is time the Government imposed much stricter entry requirements on visitors from America so as to deny entry to those US Citizens whose main purpose of visit is to exploit Canada's superior public health service. (1) Even though many Americans are willing to pay for the treatment they receive, this 'health tourism' still means longer waiting times for ordinary, hard-working Canadians who pay for their treatment through their taxes and I, therefore, duly affirm that Canada must impose stricter entry requirements on visitors from south of the border. Thank you. (1) http://www.understanding-medicaltourism.com...
Stricter entry requirements should be imposed on visitors from south of the border

Oh ok well thanks for the specifics. Um well first off, who would want to go into Canada for healthcare? They have had the same crappy healtcare that we have for way longer than we have. There is no reason that the borders should be secured or stricter for that issue. Anyone who goes into Canada for better healthcare is an idiot.. There's is debatebly as bad as ours.
I beleive anyone can drop an egg 100 feet and hit the concrete without breaking it.

Thank you. My argument is anyone can drop an egg 100 feet and hit the concrete without breaking it. It- pronoun- 5. (used to represent an action or activity understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned): http://dictionary.reference.com... Without breaking it- definition of "it" refers to the concrete, this means the sentences meaning is that the concrete wont break due to the word "it" referring back to the concrete. If i drop an egg 100 feet itll break on the concrete; however the concrete will not because the concrete is so hard. The egg is not hard enough. Heres a video of me demonstrating. Please everyone and voters understand that "it" refers back to concrete. This means the question is saying the concrete wont break. That is howit is to be intepruted in English lauguage thankyou. Thank you. My argument is anyone can drop an egg 100 feet and hit the concrete without breaking it. It- pronoun- 5. (used to represent an action or activity understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned): http://dictionary.reference.com... Without breaking it- definition of "it" refers to the concrete, this means the sentences meaning is that the concrete wont break due to the word "it" referring back to the concrete. http://www.youtube.com... Here is a video of me throwing a egg
is animal testing ethical

me re emphasize this Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing Trials On Humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved – not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life. Biomedical research is a difficult process, to say the least. The human body is the most complex machine yet encountered, consisting of trillions of cells, each containing billions of molecules, many of which are composed of tens of thousands of atoms. These molecular machines perform their designated tasks with incredible precision, working within a stunningly interdependent environment, from the level of molecules communicating with each other over minute distances right up to entire organ systems interacting with one another. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools – cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models – these are all powerful techniques in humanity's arsenal in the war against disease and ignorance, but none of them fully replicates the intricacy of a living organism.
is animal testing ethical

1. human and animal testing doesn't agree 100% of the time, in fact according to huntingdon life sciences only 5-25% of the time it agrees. based on this information the scientist that test the animals wind up killing thousands of animals, when only 240 of the released medications out of the 200,000 that there are labeled essential by testing it on the animals first. but if you think about it, it took them 199,760 tries to find 240 medications since animal testing has started. less than 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever found in animals 2. the scientist are not just testing the drugs on animals to make sure the humans will be safe, they are testing 94% on cosmetics and other house hold cleaning products leaving only 6% for medical research, therefore... testing on animals is not ethical if only 6% is being used for medical research. 3. if we are the most complex machine yet, how does it justify testing on less complex organisms. how will the biomedical researchers know what to look for if each system in animals are all different in humans. for example: thalidomide was tested on animals and was said to be okay, but caused birth defects on the humans. 4. Your examples are a little speck compared to all the failures and deaths of animals caused by these people. animal testing can be replaced by AT LEAST!!! 450 methods known at this time, therefore there are more failures and deaths in animal testing than there are cures and happy endings to this day since past history.
is animal testing ethical

I. The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many Medical Treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact, there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support Animal Testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease. II. Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing Trials On Humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved – not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life. III. Biomedical research is a difficult process, to say the least. The human body is the most complex machine yet encountered, consisting of trillions of cells, each containing billions of molecules, many of which are composed of tens of thousands of atoms. These molecular machines perform their designated tasks with incredible precision, working within a stunningly interdependent environment, from the level of molecules communicating with each other over minute distances right up to entire organ systems interacting with one another. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools – cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models – these are all powerful techniques in humanity's arsenal in the war against disease and ignorance, but none of them fully replicates the intricacy of a living organism. IV. Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists' efforts would be massively hampered, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental research which underpins all biomedical knowledge. For example, it was Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley's work on the nerves of squid that elucidated the basis of nervous transmission; and it was John C Eccles' work on cats' spinal cords that first incontrovertibly demonstrated the nature of the synapse, earning him a share of the 1963 Nobel in Physiology, along with Hodgkin and Huxley. Without their work on animals, we would know far less about the workings of our own nervous systems and how to treat them.
Evolution & Catholicism Are Mutually Exclusive

All emphases are mine. According to the 1st Vatican Council: All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.(1) The following from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Arcanum qualifies as a 'solemn judgement'proposed by the Church: The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.(3) The following from the Pontifical Bibilical Commission also qualifies as a 'solemn judgement' proposed by the Church: [Can] the literal and historical sense[...] be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in [Genesis 1-3]; for example,[...] the special creation of man [and] the formation of the first woman from the first man[...]? Reply: In the negative.(2) This 'special creation of man' and the 'formation of the first woman from the first man' in Genesis are indisputably referring to the special creation of their physical bodies, and not merely of their souls. This is evident from the fact that Adam is described as having been formed out of the earth, and Eve is described as having been formed from Adam's rib. Since souls are immaterial, they cannot be created from the earth nor a rib, as those are material things. The immaterial cannot be created from the material. I can now make the following argument: Premise 1: Catholicism demands faith that the first woman's body was created from the side of the adult Adam while he slept. Premise 2: The Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution entails the birth of the first woman from a non-human animal. Conclusion: Catholicism & the Modern Synthesis of Evolution are incompatible. (1) 1st Vatican Council (2) 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission (3) http://www.vatican.va...
Drug testing Welfare applicants in the U.S. is wrong.

To start, I quote your own statement. "Maybe people who receive grants, business loans etc. should be tested. And maybe testing welfare recipients is pure discrimination. But again, this doesn't change the fact on whether testing the applicants is wrong. Just because other people are not tested, doesn't mean welfare applicants should not be." Read this a few times, and see if it hits you. This is an admission of discrimination. These very words declare that it is discrimination. Turn in your husband? They are already struggling beyond hope. Ridding yourself of your mate and support is scary as you know what, especially when in this position. All they see is loneliness. This suggestion is uncomprehendable to most people with a mate. The old adage says "Love is blind". Try living with someone for 20 years, and then turning on them. It's almost impossible. www.domesticabuseproject.com/get-educated/compelling-reasons-women-stay it difficult to leave. -I"m nothing. I don"t deserve better. -I feel paralyzed. -I can"t face making decisions anymore. -I was brainwashed to believe that I couldn"t cope without my partner. -I am so used to life being this way. -I"m more comfortable with what I know, than the unknown out in the world. www.domesticabuseproject.com/get-educated/compelling-reasons-women-stay The response to my argument gives no answer to the children who are denied because of their parent's issue or a person who fails and gets no help feeling forced into violent, criminal behavior such as burglary. The response also admits it is discrimination. Thank you for considering my position.
Drug testing Welfare applicants in the U.S. is wrong.

Amendment IV does not say anything about drug testing. This is not people's own money they are getting. If they choose to opt in to welfare payments, they should be tested. Its not like the government is going in and testing this person without consent. People receive benefit's paid for by taxes. Yes, so? In this case, someone is getting other people's money for a purpose, the money should be used as intended.If a mom tests clean and the father takes the money she receives, she should report him for theft.Maybe people who receive grants, business loans etc. should be tested. And maybe testing welfare recipients is pure discrimination. But again, this doesn't change the fact on whether testing the applicants is wrong. Just because other people are not tested, doesn't mean welfare applicants should not be.
Drug testing Welfare applicants in the U.S. is wrong.

An electrical engineer does not get paid using tax money. Elected officials do. Elected officials do not just get a salary. They also recieve an unbelievable benefits package. It is so great that former congressman Ron Paul refused to participate in the congressional pension system, labeling it "immoral". https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Pensions- In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. As of November 2014, senior Members of Congress who have been in office for at least 32 years can earn about $139,000 a year. http://www.moneytalksnews.com... Health and life insurance- Members of Congress are entitled to purchase health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and life insurance through the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program. The employee portion of the policy premiums depends on the particular plan selected. U.S. Rep."Justin Amash, R-Mich.,"notes on his website that he pays $433.63 each month for his Blue Cross Blue Shield family health insurance plan. In addition, he pays $115.09 monthly for family dental and $57.50 a month for $176,000 worth of life insurance coverage. http://www.washingtontimes.com... Tax paid gym memberships and haircuts- While crises mount abroad and at home, some candidates this year are betting that a big issue for voters will be free gym use and subsidized haircuts on Capitol Hill. Hoping to tap some of the virulent anti-Washington rage coursing through the electorate, Democratic candidates in Republican-leaning House districts have proposed nearly identical plans to revoke a slew of Capitol Hill perks, such as the taxpayer-funded gym, salon and barbershop services for lawmakers. Next, I argue that, under current Fourth Amendment doctrine, drug testing welfare recipients is unconstitutional. https://www.law.cornell.edu... Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. http://m.aol.com... While the laws were designed to help save money by keeping people who might use their benefits on illegal drugs instead of bare necessities, they largely proved to be a complete waste of the state's money. Mic reports that the implementation of the process cost the Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars. Three years after the program was initiated in Arizona, over 87,000 welfare recipients have been tested: One test came up as positive which ended up saving the state only $560, according to USA Today.
Drug testing Welfare applicants in the U.S. is wrong.

You say that elected officials should be tested. After all, these officials receive far more money from the taxpayers, than welfare recipients do. The difference is, with them we are paying their salary for the work they do. They are receiving our money as compensation. The official was deemed competent and elected to the position he's in. Now the taxpayers pay him to do official duties, and he could use his salary however he wants to. Why is it any different than an electrical engineer that wants to go home and try some drugs on the weekend? Just because we pay the official's salary, we should be able to tell him/her what to do with it? No. They were elected to do a (hopefully) necessary job, we pay them to do that job, and they do whatever they want with the money. If the official is not performing up to expected standards, we'll vote 'em out in the next election.But, what is important to note, is that even if elected officials should be drug tested, that doesn't change if it's wrong to drug test welfare recipients. The purpose of welfare is to hold up the recipient until they are able to sustain themselves. Its not a system to take lightly, taking the citizens' hard earned money and giving it to others. It has a very specific and important purpose. The people paying into this have a right to know that their money is being used smartly by the recipients. The recipients shouldn't be taking any sort of degenerative drugs, they should be actively trying to find work or get a more sustainable job. It is not an invasion of privacy, because they are using other people's money. Again, the money was given to them with a specific purpose. They shouldn't take the money and do something destructive and contrary to that purpose. So yes, this rule targets the poor. It's the same poor who are also targeted to receive welfare monies/benefits in the first place. So if taxpayers are helping out a large number of people by supplying them with helpful money, food stamps, and other "benefits", is it wrong to say that those people must prove they are using those monies as intended?