BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal testing

I think that animal testing should be illegal, people say it helps with medical advances but it really does not. Animal testing is 43% accurate when it comes back to humans. Animals feel emotionally and physically the same way as we do. They do not through themselves at us willing to be tested on ready for a long suffering painful death but we do it to them anyways its wrong to test on them. There are other ways that we can test medicines, like artificial skins. What's your opinion on animal testing. If your for it watch forks over knives on Netflix it will definitely change your mind about testing medicines on animals when really we don't need to.
Should Scotland become an Independent Country

My main argument is based on the fact that Scotland could survive on its own without reliance on the UK Government, due to North Sea Oil, Gas, Whiskey, Tourist and Golf Attractions, upcoming events such as the Commonwealth Games and Masters tournament and of course Scottish fishing trade. These are trades and industries that have sustain not only Scotland but the rest of the UK through these world renowned products and services. A lot of people believe that, we Scots are living of off English tax revenue and further dragging our economy into debt. Now if you look at the facts Britain has a population of [1]62.641 million in 2011 and of that [2]5,295,000 are from Scotland. Now if we looked at the facts the UK Public Spending is [3]$1.04 Trillion according to HM Treasury. "1,040,000,000,000 divided by 62,641,000 would cost "16,603 per head, now if we took Scotland out of this equation 62,641,000 subtract 5,295,000 equals 57,346,000 so this means that Scotland only equate to 8.45% of the UK population so if we calculate 8.45% of $1.04 Trillion this is [4]$8,788,000,000 = "5,406,667,604. Scotland in 2012/2013 will spend [5]"28.5 billion on public sector spending, this proves that Scotland could easily clear its debt. However I understand that this may seem like the whole of the UK is subsidising this but if we look at the North Sea gas and oil revenue, "Detailed research of the money brought in by the UK oil and gas fields suggests that Scottish waters " defined by the line of demarcation used in the fishing industry " accounted for 91.1 per cent of UK North Sea revenue in 2008/09. If calculations are made on the basis that those assets are Scottish rather than British, they increase Scotland"s contribution to Treasury coffers by "11.7 billion, wiping out the "10.5bn deficit and leaving Scotland in the black to the tune of "1.3bn. " [6] These facts alone state that Scotland is an independently rich country and that we could cut off any dead weight i. e. debt from the UK by choosing independence. Another flaw in the UK that I would like to point out is its mass increase in immigration ever since the EU was introduced also adding weight to our debt and rendering our society unmanageable due to the illegal as well as legal immigrant rate, census's only show half to 1 million REGISTERED and LEGAL immigrants [7] this however does not include illegal immigrants and travel and tuition visas. This is a heavy weight on our welfare budget and housing as immigrants need to be re-homed find work or failing that sign on, a smaller population the size of Scotland's for example would be far more easier to manage. Thank you I look forward to my opponents rebuttal. [1]. https://www.google.co.uk... [2]. http://www.bbc.co.uk... [3]. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk... [4]. https://www.google.co.uk... [5]. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [6]. http://blogs.channel4.com... [7]. http://www.ons.gov.uk...
Should Scotland become an Independent Country

This may not be on top of everyone's political agenda, however coming from the UK and more importantly Scotland, I would like to debate on this topic to see what other views people may or may not have on the upcoming Referendum in 2014. Now I would like to state that this round is only an acceptance round and to clear up any grey areas on the matter. Here are some rules to clear up anything. 1. This argument is regarding dissolving the 1707 Acts of Union between the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland treaty, NOT the Acts of Union 1603 between England and Scotland treaty declaring British Union, Monarch and Head of State. 2. Because of point 1 this means that Scotland whilst being an independent country is still answerable and loyal to the Royal Windsor Family and Queen will still be Head of State, the only difference will be within its parliament and what decisive powers it maintains as a country and will be answerable to no other power than its own government body, Scotland shall also be known as its own country as opposed to Region of Great Britain. 3. We will still maintain Sterling (Pound Coins) and not submit to the Euro unless agreed upon with both parties (EU & Scottish Parliament) if this poll of independence is successful. 4. Scotland still have the opportunity to remain in the European Union and keep the Sterling currency. 5. Scotland will still maintain its current Military Force and may withdraw or engage in any combats it is decided within government, although keeping many of its existing Allies. 6. Scotland can still be an existing member of NATO despite withdrawing all of its Nuclear Arms and Weapons, and shall be decided on a vote October 2014. 7. Scotland, should it become independent, shall have to take its fair share of the UK debt along with it, this shall be discussed as to how it will be divided up among governments. If I have missed anything or you want something cleared up please leave a comment in the comments box before accepting. Thank you and Good Luck to my opponent I look forward to your debate
Debate.org is a quality service.

debate.org is not a quality service because there are too many errors. Sometimes when I want to post an argument or comment, it shows that there is an error and technicians are informed. This happens for at least a few weeks already. It does not happen every time I want to post something, but it is often. These kind of error can cause members to miss the time for posting an argument. When they want to post an argument, they cannot, because of the error. When the error no longer occurs, the deadline for posting may be already over, so the member cannot post his/her argument. If someone did not post an argument on time, the debate will be stopped. It wasted the effort of the previous round of debates.
Math is more fun than English class

Hello, thank you for coming . I'll be debating that math class is not more enjoyable than English class. First off how many people like to relax? Probably most if not all of you said you do. Well in English class you can just take a deep breath and relax, sit down read a book . At most sometimes you might have to answer or jot down something about what you are read but it's WAY easier than doing algebra , which hurts some peoples heads. Another thing is the number of people failing to get a D grade or higher in ordinary-level Maths has risen significantly, In total, about 4,000 students fail Maths across higher, ordinary and foundation levels and while most higher-level maths students pass the exams, about 700 fail. Next this year 36,577 people took the English exam, making it the most popular subject, because English is just easy and relaxing. Also if you are stressed out, at English you get a chance to write, which is a great stress reliever especially if you are writing about your feelings. Lastly English is also all about socializing which is another great way to relieve stress and it just makes your overall mood happier. Without English you wouldn't have time to relax because your sports, activities, school, sleep, family, eating, homework etc... would leave you no spare time. English allows you to just be happier, time to relax and just sit and read a book and just overall English is easy and THAT is why math class isn't more enjoyable than English class. Thank you .
Gay marrage

I will assume the position of contradicting that Gay Marriage should be allowed. My opponent has provided no real topic besides this, and he has provided no definitions. My opponent has provided no claims or arguments. All my opponent said was that it "should be allowed". I as the con have the responsibility for negative the Pro. The Pro must provide reasoning for why it should be allowed. However, a few reasons of my own. Gay marriage is not beneficial. Why? Marriage is something needed for societies to survive. It is obvious, gay marriage will not produce more children. My opponent, being the pro, should show why it would be beneficial for the homosexuals to be married, as there was none given so far. I am not, in anyway, attacking homosexuals. I am simply stating that marriage is not something that homosexuals need. It is not my job as the Con to talk about whether they deserve rights or anything similar; it is only my job to negate that homosexuals should be married. Of course, children growing up with these environments will believe that it is a choice to be homosexual, and more people may take part in this, and thus, pro-creative activity is lowered. Many studies have been conducted over the last two centuries and none of them have been able to locate any appreciable difference biologically between a gay person and a heterosexual person. [1] Additionally, having the father and mother figure has become a society norm, and it can be known to weaken traditional family values by doing differently. Marriage is overall the most serious institution we have, and it only makes biological sense that men and women become married, considering they can pro-create while homosexuals cannot, and this of course proves to be beneficial; reproduction. My opponent has not shown in anyway why gay marriage should be valued, and overall, my opponent simply has no case, and I urge a Con vote.
Does it matter what grade you start dating

From what I understand in your topic, you are talking about school age since you are referring to a "grade". Your position is CON which is no, it doesn't matter what grade you should start dating.You are not clear enough and this topic is very subjective but my position is that you should only date if you are old enough to be ready for a serious relationship and mature enough to handle responsibilities and overcome certain emotions.Here are my reasons why you shouldn't be dating at a young age or if you aren't emotionally ready and mature:1) Would be easily distracted with a relationship instead of focusing on your work or whatever should be given enough time2) Too young to explore about other people (opposite and same sexes). Get to know your body first and yourself3) Might see relationships as flings or something casual4) Poor choices that would possibly lead to devastating consequences that could cost you your future5) Poor judgment of other people (opposite and same sexes) could lead to abuse, trauma and manipulation of each other to do something wrong6) May not have enough money or would be dependent on someone for money to spend in your relationshipI'll await your responses.
Finding Figfoot: Fact or Fiction

First of all Figfoot is not a thing. And finding Bigfoot is fake. Bigfoot was just a scary story to tell at campfires and then people decided to make a show to grab attention. "Bigfoot" in shows are either big monkeys or gorilla's or a guy in a suite. Someone MADE UP a story about bigfoot. It's not a true story. I mean if it was true then myths told long ago could all be true. It's just fiction.
Are Violent video games like CoD bad for younger children?(<12)

I do agree to that, but even parents can misjudge. Violent video games are different, than, say, 'Southpark'. SOme children might apply the game in reality and try something that can hurt themselves or others. Also, parents can only do so much. The children can still play these kinds of games at friends' houses, etc. (Also, are you a professional on this topic, as I need to write an essay for school and need to use quotes from experts.)
Are Violent video games like CoD bad for younger children?(<12)

Thank you to Con for posting this debate. I hope we can have a civilised argument and good luck to you. First off, I don't think that Violent video games are bad for younger kids. In reality it all depends on the child. Its the parents decision if the child is mature enough or not. Of course if the child isn't mature enough the game may cause him fear, but if you think about it the odds of that happening are slim. Its a video game not real life.
Any animal other than a human can't use a computer

http://www.youtube.com... Thank you for challenging me to this debate. How an animal can use a computer: 1. If someone throws a computer outside, a small creature such as a mouse or squirrel could live inside of it. 2. View the video I posted. It talks about a monkey using a computer. If you can not see the video, I will provide a link to it in my sources. 3. A animal could scratch itself on a computer. Thank you very much for posting this debate. Happy New Years. Sources: (1). http://www.highbeam.com... (2). Youtube Video
Gordon Freeman can beat Master Chief in a Fight

In the blue corner, with experience in Black Mesa and in his most recent games, he fought against a totalitarian race of aliens named the Combine. He is what's known as a silent protagonist and he doesn't talk much. It's Gordon Freeman from the Half-Life series! And in the red corner, a man who knew war from the day he was born, and fights against an evil cult of aliens. He talks more than Gordon, and his favorite color is green. It's Master Chief from the Halo series! I can't wait to see my opponent. :3
Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts

This is also my second debate on this site, so hopefully we will be able to learn together. I will be debating that birth sex should be a factor in legal contracts. Birth sex and gender are difficult concepts, and have been struggled with throughout the years. The World Health Organisation's definition is this: ""Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women, "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. " [1] As set by Pro, we will only be discussing matters of 'sex' within this is debate, that is, purely biological characteristics. However, this does not make our definition any easier. If one wishes to refer to the reproductive organs of a person, then a 'man' would be any person possessing testicles and a penis, and a 'woman' any person posessing a womb and ovaries. There are exceptions to this though - hermaphrodites are individuals 'having the reproductive organs and many of the secondary sex characteristics of both sexes. ' [2] Definition by what chromosomes an individual has is no easier - many individuals are born with XXX, XXY, and other variations on the normal XX/XY pattern. These individuals are difficult to classify, and for simplicity, I believe it would be easiest for the sake of the debate to define this entire group (although I do not deny that there is significant variation within it) as 'trans-sex individuals'. I invite Pro to redefine this if she sees fit. Finally, a definition of 'legal contract' is also required. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'contract' as: "1)a: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable, b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price, c : the act of marriage or an agreement to marry, 2) a document describing the terms of a contract" [3] We will therefore be debating any legally binding agreement between two persons or parties, whether that be of marriage, business, or otherwise. Once again, thanks to my opponent, and I wish her the best of luck! [1] . http://www.who.int... [2] . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts

Ultimately, I mean to discuss the ethics of same sex marriage, but I wish to examine the root issue. Essentially, I feel that it is unethical to change someone's legal rights according to what biological sex they were determined to be at the time of birth. And to me, that is what the issue of same sex marriage boils down to. I'd like to also note that this is my first ever attempt to debate here :) I'm not asking for my opponent to go easy on me... in fact, I'd love to get trounced! Best way to learn. Also, I'd be fascinated to see a great argument against me. But, nonetheless, I'd like to ask for understanding and acceptance in advance for any errors of form I might make. I've read a number of debates, so I think I've got it, and I suppose we'll see if I'm right :) So, here's my proposed breakdown of rounds: Round 1. Acceptance, definition(s) (if necessary), and brief summary position. Round 2. Primary points / questions Round 3. Rebuttal / answers Round 4. Counter-rebuttal (? If that's the right term? You get the idea, though :P) and conclusion Thank you for whoever takes up my challenge! :D
World Governance

Socialism noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Essentially, what you are describing is a world wide socialist state, but with a form of very direct democracy. Now, in theory, this sounds pretty good. However, there is no way it could work. For one, it would have to be supported by every person in the world, unless you wanted some people to be oppressed. Sure, they would have a voice in government, but what if their voice in government is that they should change the government? Socialism has never worked on a large scale, because, fact is, people like to have their own stuff, and provide for themselves, not for other people they don't even know. Even on DDO, 63% of us are against redistribution of wealth, and 58% are against socialism. That means a majority of JUST THIS SITE would be against you. How would it be non-hierarchical? At some level, you would have to have someone in charge of other people. Someone would have to decide where food is needed, and who is to say they won't send better food and items to their own town or family? Who will investigate corruption? How can you possible think that everyone in the world could eat whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it? There is one sentence I find particularly concerning about your utopia- "work that is required would be distributed equally among people but no particular work would be forced upon anyone unless it is ever necessary" Now, In a society where everyone basically has all of their hearts desires at their fingertips, that would obviously be necessary ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME. And say someone says, "Hey, I don't want to work on loading food shipments because I am tired of doing that and I hate it! ", then what? Due to your word choice of "forced upon" I assume there will be some sort of "Laziness Police" that will go around, apparently forcing people to do work if the don't want to because, for your society to function, everyone must live for everyone else, not just themselves, or they will be punished. Now, obviously, Pro's Utopia is far from ideal and also it is impossible to achieve such a thing. If people just stop working for the government, then what? Does it work like Soviet Russia? Are they carted off to gulags?
World Governance

Instead of calling it a world government, I think it's closer to something like an open world management system. In Commonwealth English, a government narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time, the concept I am presenting gives this power to all people, who would make their decisions based on all the information they have at their disposal delivered through an online platform, this website is a decent example. Public choice theory suggests that when the benefits of political action (e.g., lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity, you see I think that the reason we are all aware of the problems we face and yet fail to do anything about it is because we have no platform that would make it easy for us to contribute. Furthermore, it would not be a corporate takeover it would be a nonhierarchic, non profit group of people, the organizational structure would only be determined based on what gives us the most benefits etc.... You see, if you look to my analogy about monopoly, you realize that when observing this game that eventually someone always ends up with everything in the end...which is what has happened, few people own everything, all I am suggesting is that we turn that around and go from there but in a scientifically arranged and systematic way. Socialism is a good way of looking at it but it's not bound by archaic or arbitrary rules, what I mean is that society would be organised in such a way that is determined by information through people.... until today we've never had the internet to educate us on anything we want. And by the way, how about we let the voters decide their own terms.
World Governance

I'm going to try to go into this with as much depth as I have time for, something I probably should have done in my previous argument, but i'll still be very brief since I really am just assuming a lot of things. First I will describe the finished product, but keep in mind that the shift would not occur instantly, gradual steps would need to be taken, meaning the system itself would operate differently along the way, but in the end, it must start somewhere. So we all "own" the planet equally, then let's establish our priorities and who is going to do what. As you would imagine, our basic needs come first: food, water, shelter for everyone. The way we do this, is pretty obvious. The same way we will be acquiring or using most of our goods and services, through a global resource sharing and management system, just keep in mind, no one will be deciding what you eat, simply THAT you eat....whatever and whenever you want (of course taking into consideration the sustainability aspects). Ok so how are goods produced and transported? Mostly by machines as they are today but the work that is required would be distributed equally among people but no particular work would be forced upon anyone unless it is ever necessary....and now...if you haven't already realized, our workload to provide for our basic needs once all the major infrastructure is in place would be something like " a minimum of 20% of the population must work 20 hours each per week at any given time" , obviously this is just a guess but you get the idea. Right now were trying to get most of the population working 40+ hours a week which is not only unattainable, it's not expected to achieve a desired outcome because we are all doing it to survive independently. Ok so now we are all just living, we all have food, shelter and what not....what else do we do when we have everything we need?.....It's not the end of the road yet....we can do whatever we want after that...through the same types of systems, working together and sharing, creating etc... So how do we get there??? Well folks, get ready because the road ahead is going to be a rough one.... we must all simultaneously wear masks and take our money out of the banks so that....no no no.....i'm kidding, this isn't the way to go. This is how we do it, it's quite simple actually.... it starts off with a small group of people and a website very similar to this one and our goal is to grow our numbers, of people but also of property and slowly but surely, we take back what is ours, one factory at a time by using this existing system, eventually, everyone on earth will "own" the planet. hahahaha....what do you think?? We have the numbers....let's play monopoly!