BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no)

Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade, for instance: 1.We share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body 2.Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma 3.While non-animal methods play an important part of biomedical research, they cannot replace all use of animals 4.Thanks to research on animals leading to the development of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART), AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago 5.While Fleming discovered penicillin without using animals, he shared the Nobel Prize with Florey and Chain who, by testing it on mice, discovered how penicillin could be used to fight infections inside the body 6.Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals 7.Thanks to animal research, primarily in mice, cancer survival rates have continued to rise 8.Modern anesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development 9.Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals 10.Scanning techniques including CT and MRI were developed using non-human animals As you can see we actually increased our medical capabilities by a lot just with testing on animals. Also may i add that there are many, many, many mice- over one billion, so i don't think that science is causing an extinction over any animal they tests. Can i ask you a personal question Sashil. Are you catholic or christian? Do you believe in "God" or a "God"? i will explain in my next response why i have asked this. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... http://wiki.answers.com...
required beliefs for salvation, are unclear, for christians

so is this son of God stuff another item on the list of things needed to be saved? or is that just a clarification of what you meant about knoweledge of him? what if you are new to the faith but believe the essentials like everything else we'll say? or even what if you are experienced in the faith but for some reason believe everything else but not that? in any case, you just added another requirement. and are you denying the bible? it says if you believe Jesus is Lord,and that he rose from the dead you will be saved con is trying to argue you also have to believe he is the son of God it's funny, to see this poster making his 'magical' list, as if he definitiely know, while in another debate con is arguing different points acting the same way. they can't both be right. it's not that drastic to rely on someone in faith, all it is and takes is faith. if you want to live forever, put your faith in him. it doesn't necessarily follow that he must be the son of God or that be a prerequisite for a beleif. i will grant most expereinced chrisitans could and would believe it, though. now con is adding more requirements, savior, messiah. and he's adding son of God under this believe category when he just did it in the last category. again, what about that verse about beeliving in your heart and confessing with your lips? you add new material. or things like 'believe in the lord and u will be saved'. heck, look at most sinner's prayers on the internet, those praryers that are said to bring one to faith etc. most do not list everything con has mentioned. while his list might be suffiicent to be saved it couldn't cover everyone. so, as it is, the requiements are still too vague or listy. too inclusive or restrictive etc
required beliefs for salvation, are unclear, for christians

Thank you for your timely response.My opponent makes a two-fold statement: the amount of knowledge of Christ needed for salvation is unknown and the phrase "believe in Christ" is vague as well. If I am not mistaken, she attempted to portray portions of my opening statement as ambiguous in nature. However, no such ambiguity exists and I will explain why, specifically in the points she tried to point out as ambiguous.Knowledge of ChristAlthough it naturally follows that all who repent and put their faith in Christ know he is the Son of God (Matthew 16:15-16; Romans 10:23; 1 John 3:23; 4:2, 15; 5:1, 5), I will appeal to common sense.Is it sensible to not know whether or not a man is the Son of God and the only way to the Father before going to drastic ends to remain loyal to him and placing the fate of your eternity in his hands? Among those that are central to Christian doctrine is Jesus' identity as the Son of God. Had the Apostles not have known of Jesus' deity, their selfless service to him would have been improbable.Believe in ChristBelief in Christ is not merely acknowledgement of his existence as, for instance, a good teacher. Belief in Christ extends to putting one's faith in Christ, being fully aware of who he is as the Messiah, Savior, and Son of God (John 3:16-18; Romans 1:16; Acts 10:43; 1 John 3:23; etc.). Without believing in Christ as who he is, spritual death is inevitable (John 8:24); "What if you are one of those people who just believe Jesus existed and taught a good message?" For all intents and purposes, then, forget it.I will not leave it to Pro to, for the final round, explain why salvation within Christianity is unclear. Until then, no such ambiguity exists.
required beliefs for salvation, are unclear, for christians

so, i see repentance, belief in christ, knowledge of who he is, a life of works. it's vague just right there, cause what knowledge is required? just some knowledge? what if all you know is that he was born of a virgin? is that sufficient if you are a good person, repent, and have faith that christ existed? what if you are one of those people who just believe Jesus existed and taught a good message? this person would fulfill your criteria, cause 'believe in christ' is extremely vague. yet a huge majority of people say 'a good message' belief isnt sufficient.
required beliefs for salvation, are unclear, for christians

the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. so what is it? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. so what's the magical formula?
Mock Presidental Debate Me Vs You

Hello welcome to the debate! In this debate we will be doing a mock presidential debate you must present what party you will be and you can have a running mate which will back you up in the comments. (Voters include the running mate in voting) (The running mate is a debater on debate.org) 1st round is acceptance only, this is a closed debate so please say something in the comments if you want to join. If you find a way to join without my consent you will be forced to forfeit please specify your party and running mate in the 2nd round. Thanks! (If you break any of these rules you will be forced to forfeit.
The Holocaust isn't estimated at 10-11 million.

From my opponent's quote, in addition to the forum itself, I find no evidence that FREEDO was asserting that the Holocaust had less than 10 million deaths. However, it would make sense if he had done so. The most widely accepted definition of the Holocaust on the internet seems to be the systematic murder of the Jews. Some sources, including the University of Minnesota, state that the Holocaust also includes the number of Jews, but these are few in number in comparison to sources who consider the former definition. Here are all of the sources giving statistics on the Holocaust: http://library.thinkquest.org... http://www.holocaustchronicle.org... http://faculty.ucc.edu... http://www.humanitas-international.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://www.historyplace.com... http://pages.uoregon.edu... http://www.ahbjewishcenter.org... 7 of these 9 sources claim that the Holocaust was the systematic murder of the Jews during WWII. Estimates according to this definition range from 5.5-6 million. The definition of the Holocaust which includes ethnic groups other than Jews give estimates of 12-13 million. The only reference you gave regarding your estimates is Wikipedia. You claim that the website asserts estimates of 10-11 million, as shown by sources [12] and [13]. Let's take a look at both. Source [12] is "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" is a book written by Timothy D. Snyder. According to this source, however "5.4m died in a well known event, the Holocaust " but many more died in more obscure circumstances." There is no reference given to the 10-11 million person figure. Source [13] is... well... here it is, in all of its glory: http://www.tnr.com... In conclusion, there are no academic Holocaust death toll estimates that give figures of 10-11 million. The sources referenced in the Wikipedia article point to a death toll of 5.4 million. If the definition of the Holocaust is considered to be the systematic killing of Jews and other political/ethnic groups, death toll estimates are given at 12-13 million. [12] Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. London: The Bodley Head.
The Holocaust isn't estimated at 10-11 million.

While those may be valid estimates as well, Others estimate the # to be between 10 & 11 million. "Recent estimates based on figures obtained since the fall of the Soviet Union indicates some ten to 11 million civilians and prisoners of war were intentionally murdered by the Nazi regime. [12]"(1) (I should also say that I was not expecting my opponent to give a higher estimate. I wrote in R1: "The resolution of this debate is that statement made by FREEDO, in the context of that thread. " Based on the context in that thread FREEDO seemed to be saying it was less than 10 - 11 million. Some guy: Can't think of anything worse than the Holocaust. .. FREEDO: Your level of education is pretty mediocre then. .. Some Guy: No it isn't, and 10-11 million dead isn't small, in real or relative terms. .. There's nothing else I can think of with more than 4 million dead. FREEDO: The Holocaust isn't estimated at 10-11 million. .. I'll leave this to the voters to decide. ) (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Holocaust isn't estimated at 10-11 million.

FREEDO made the following statement: "The Holocaust isn't estimated at 10-11 million."[1] The resolution of this debate is that statement made by FREEDO, in the context of that thread. ( I would send the challenge directly to FREEDO, but I already sent one, & DDO will not allow me to send him another one right now, for some reason.) No lawyering No semantics No new arguments in R4 [1] http://www.debate.org...
Capitalism.

Welfare Business owners earn more money than they need to survive. Giving some of that money to people who can't find jobs, can't survive on their minimum wage jobs, or are unable to work (disabled people, mostly,) is a good thing. Everyone deserves enough money to eat and pay rent, no matter how little they work. In a capitalist society, anyone who doesn't have a good job is left to die. Supporting Capitalism is only one step above suggesting that we just kill all the poor people since they're getting in the way. We need to give less money to people who already have more than enough and more money to people who are living in poverty. Capitalist Governments Only Care About The Rich I don't care if cutting taxes would be beneficial to the government. My problem with capitalism in the first place is that it's only set up to benefit politicians and the rich. The government is supposed to be there to represent the citizens. It may boost entrepreneurship and productivity but, again, that only benefits big business owners. What the majority of America needs is not for the richest 1% of society to have even more money. What the majority of America needs is to not have to worry about how they'll pay their rent this month or how they're going to feed their children. We need more money being given to the poor, not more money being given to the rich. If we stop taxing the rich, who do you think is going to suffer from that? The poor. Tax money goes towards health care, and yet there's still poor people dying because they can't afford hospital visits or treatment. We need more tax money going towards that, not less. It goes to food stamps and free school lunches, and yet there's still people who are barely scraping by on a few calories a day. We need more tax money going towards that, too. Sources: http://www.dailyfinance.com...
Capitalism.

WelfareWelfare is not the best idea, from taking taxes. Business owner's work hard to get the money that they earn, and by giving it to people who hardly work, is not a good. Welfare is a system of taking hard working peoples' money, and giving it to people who do not contribute to this country. TaxesAdding more taxes to the business owner's is not a good idea. If the government were to keep taxing, and adding more taxes, the business would be broke, and the government would lose a lot of money. The solution, is less taxes. This is why Burger King, is moving to Canada. The US government has put so many taxes on them, that they need to move away to avoid paying them. It may sound like a bad thing, but it's not Burger King's fault. According to http://fivethirtyeight.com... Burger King, can save a lot of money, by moving to Canada. This is because of the taxing, our government has sadly, put too much taxes on them. Their choice, moving. Benefits of cutting Corporate taxesCutting corporate taxes, will be very beneficial to the government. One great benefit, is that cutting corporate taxes will increase long term economic growth. It can also lead to better living standards, boost investment, entrepreneurship, and productivity, and can lower tax burdens. There are more reasons, however, these are the best related to the topic. sources; http://theweek.com...http://www.theblaze.com...http://www.americanthinker.com...http://www.nraila.org...http://mic.com...http://fivethirtyeight.com...http://taxfoundation.org...
Capitalism.

Taxes You say that taxes only take away a small portion of the business's profit, yet that keeps them from getting too rich? If the rich had to pay higher taxes, there would be more money for the government to put into welfare and other systems to help the poor. Currently the rich are taxed, but not nearly enough. They're still left with more than enough money to live on while anyone who isn't a business owner is barely scraping by. Revolts There's always a risk for revolts with capitalism, too. You say people will grow bitter with the government for not giving them enough recognition, but people in America are already bitter with the government for that same reason. When employees are barely being paid minimum wage for the same hours of work that CEO's are earning a fortune from, it's extremely likely for those minimum wage employees to revolt. People protest how low the minimum wage is all the time. Doing a little research, I can easily find an example of people protesting the minimum wage from this month, in 150 cities. Sources: http://www.ibtimes.com...
Capitalism.

The real numbers Small business owners actually make a lot less than what you are saying. The average entrepreneur's salary, is actually about $68,000-$72,000 a year. That's less than what doctors, lawyers, and software engineers make a year. These businesses are not making as much as you claim.GreedCapitalism can have governmental involvement, there is one word that prevents the rich, from being too rich. That word, is taxes. Taxing a business, takes away some of their profit, and that small portion ends up going the the government. With multiple businesses around, the government can make a lot of money. The business owners aren't as greedy, but the government will take money from someone, no matter what economic system is in action. The government taxing a business, is like a balance system. The business owners get set back, and need to make up the loss money from taxes. CommunismCommunism...America's enemy. In a Communist country, you have few rights. This can seriously impact freedom. Communism removes private property, and private property, is what makes Capitalism work. With Socialism, people earn the same amount of money. As http://listverse.com... "They are also likely to grow bitter at the government for failing to give them recognition when they do a good job. Revolts become a distinct liability; many a Communist state has fallen because of this problem of reduced incentives.R32;R32; Meaning, that when people are all the same, they don't feel as motivated to do a good job. sources; http://townhall.com...http://www.forbes.com...http://www.qwhatis.com...http://listverse.com...http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com...http://bobzermop.hubpages.com...http://listverse.com...http://www.libertyzone.com...
Capitalism.

Summary People with lesser jobs don't make as much money as business owners do. Capitalism is unfair because someone with a good job can make $9,000 an hour while people with minimum wage jobs make $8.00 an hour. That's an $8,992 difference for the same amount of work. Plus, the higher paying jobs often only involve sitting behind a desk while the minimum wage jobs involve physical labor and the higher paying jobs have better benefits like healthcare. It's an exaggeration to say that the business owners and their employees are benefiting equally from capitalism. Capitalism Cares About Profit, Not The Health Of The Poor Capitalism does not simply feed people. Capitalism agrees to give people food in exchange for money. If someone doesn't have the money, a capitalist society couldn't care less about whether or not that person starves to death. People having access to food and other basic human rights is not a goal of capitalism, it just happens to be a side effect in capitalism's race for profits. Greed The government and business owners making more money does not make society happy. It makes the government and business owners happy, while a good portion of society is living in poverty. In a fair society, people with more money than they need would share it with people who don't have as much. In a capitalist society, people with more money than they need focus all their efforts on making even more money and don't care who they're taking that money away from. Sources: http://www.businessinsider.com...
Capitalism.

SummaryWith Capitalism, business owners aren't the only people who can make a lot of money. Because there are always lesser jobs that still give money to the government. People who own businesses, can have stores all over a country, and those stores create jobs. HealthCapitalism actually does feed people. Grocery stores sell food to the people in that country. People need jobs to buy food, so the person will probably get a job, to pay for the food (unless they live on welfare...). With Capitalism, greater food choices pop up. If a business has sells food that is dietary, then a certain group of people would buy food from the stores that the business owns. The same thing goes for any other kind of food producing business. Wealth Of course people who take a part in business ownership, will attempt to make a profit. This will produce wealth for the business, and the government. The government will make more, and the people will be happy. This system isn't 100% perfect, but no system is 100% perfect either.
Capitalism.

The Problem With Capitalism: As you say, if a person is in a position where they can start a successful business, they can become rich and happy through capitalism. However, anyone who isn't in the top tier of society suffers because of it. Not everyone who tries to open a store can have the next Walmart. As of 2004, only 11% of Americans owned businesses, and that number is declining. That leaves 89% of the population who aren't benefiting from capitalism, which isn't even counting the amount of business owners who aren't wildly successful or go bankrupt from it. Independence For Only The Richest Members Of Society Capitalism does give people a chance to be free, but, again, only around 11% of the population benefits from that chance. It also takes away people's options. In capitalism, you either work hard at a successful job or you die. In a fair society, a person's right to life wouldn't depend on what kind of job they have. Capitalist societies don't care about feeding people who can't afford their own food, or providing housing to the homeless. A capitalist society believes that if you can't get a successful business job, you're worthless to society and undeserving of basic human rights such as food, clothing, and housing. Summary Capitalism cares only about making the richest members of society richer. Capitalism can't exist without poverty, and any Capitalist society is going to be built by stepping on the poorer members of that society. Sources: http://www.smallbusinessnewz.com... http://www1.umn.edu...
Capitalism.

What is Capitalism?An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.----I am pro/for Capitalism, my opponent will be against Capitalism. ----Why Capitalism is goodCapitalism is work harder, smarter, and you'll be happier. Generally, Capitalism will generate more wealth, than Socialism will. This economic system is beneficial to a free, and hard working society. The 'American dream' is business. In this economic system, people can own private property, to own a business. Businesses generate a lot of wealth, if they do well. With this, important roles take place, and more jobs will be created. More jobs, means more money. Different kinds of Capitalism.According to http://www.qwhatis.com... there are seven kinds. The seven are; Anarcho Capitalism- Elimination of the state and dominance of individual in the free market; Mercantilism- Capitalism that has something to do with doing business with other nations; Free-Market Capitalism-Capitalism in a free market; Social Market Economy-Minimal government involvement (source tells you involvement) State Capitalism-The government gets involved with Capitalists; Corporate Capitalism- A free/mixed market; And the Mixed Economy- Public, and private ownership of production. IndependenceCapitalism gives people a chance to be free, and be a part of business. The government is usually never involved, and entrepreneurs get a chance to make a great amount of money. Some of this amount, will be in taxes, to the government. A large amount of businesses, can bring a lot of jobs, and money to the government. This is a great, and hard working system that will produce enough wealth, for a nation to go on for generations. Sources; http://townhall.com... http://www.forbes.com...http://www.qwhatis.com...