BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house would ban animal testing

Honourable and learned opponents. Animal testing is one of the most controversial topics in our generation. Just because animal testing has been going on for several centuries doesn't make it any bit okay. my two arguments will be, the uneccesarry use of animal testing as well as the chance of false results. It's completely necessary to use animals in a lab, partially because the world doesn't need a new soap or erectile dysuction pill so badly it results in the deaths of innocent animals. Most of the time these animals are tested on extremely utterly useless things, and very rarely do scientists finds major break throughs and advances medecine. The fact remains that if rodents were dying in a lab for cancer research, and real progress is being done, I'd guarantee most people wouldn't be against it. But the circumstances are not so pretty, and you cannot possibly justify testing on these animals with little to no advances. My next argument is faulty science. If the scientist does find a breakthrough and whatever drug he/she was being tested on animals does end up working, chances are it won't work on a human. Making it once again IRRELEVANT. You must understand that there are better ways out there, to find cures for medecine, to test products, and that animal testing isn't even close to being the answer to our problems. By now you should know that 1. The majority of our tests are on unnecessary products, at least not important enough to be used on animals 2. Even the small minority of animals being tested for medical reasons usually end up failing and resulting in a waste of time and not to mention an innocent life. 3. IF by chance the medecine ends up working on the animal, there is no telling whether or not this will work on a human being. Statistically 92/100 drugs that passes animals tests, FAILS in humans
Capitalism Is The Greatest Economic Ideal

Capitalism is the most useful, most practical, and best economic system there is. It just makes sense. First of all, many people say that the government has an obligation to help the marginalized. Their solution: take from others to give to the poor. While their intentions are good, this is not a healthy practice. Things like welfare are like legal theft. Yes, there are people who need my money more than I do. But it is for me to decide how I spend it. In Capitalism, everyone has a chance to move up in society. Many will argue that this is a nearly impossible feat, but just look at the hundreds of thousands of stories about how our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers came to this country with nothing, but ended up being very successful. This is called the American dream, and without capitalism, that dream could not happen. I think it can be safe to say that the sole purpose of the law is to maintain justice. Right? So to have things like welfare, and even things like Affirmative Action, are abusing the legislative powers that our officials have. When the government gets involved in things other than protecting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," things get messy. And to avoid this socio-economic "mess" we look to Capitalism. No, Capitalism is not perfect, but what system is? By being laissez-fare, we are ensuring that everyone has an equal chance. Again, it isn't perfect, but Capitalism is the most inclusive and hands off, and therefore the best, most practical economic system.
Capitalism Is The Greatest Economic Ideal

Problems with Communism: 1. Your first point describes a utopia Communist society. But have you ever known any Communist nation to be successful in this regard. If anything, Communist countries only become poorer and more unstable. For example, in Cuba, you can only receive so much food before the government cuts you off. My grandpa had to steal from the government to keep his family from starving. I'm sure that he was not the only one. 2. You claim that competition is wasteful and unnecessary. But if we never had competition, what would prevent the one or two producers from making the same crappy products over and over again. Competition prevents this. Let's say I own a computer company and do fairly well. Then, someone else comes around, but is having trouble getting by because of my success. So, he improves on his design and makes something I can't. This competition drives innovation. Otherwise, companies would have no incentive to improve their products. 3. I'm not sure I understand your 3rd point. I get what you mean about "efficiency" but there is so much to benefit from foreign trade partners. I think that they benefits of international trade would outweigh any lose in "efficiency." Problems with Selective Socialism: You say, "In such an economy the government nationalizes only key industries..Health Care, Transportation, Mail, Housing construction, personal power, and personal utilities industries." Our current capitalist government already supplies several of these services and more (mail, utilities, education, etc). So what, then, makes selective socialism so great or different? The way you word it, you make it sound like selective socialism is just capitalism with just a lot of welfare-like programs. 1. Similar to the 1st point on Communism, every single real world case has not shown to hold your statement of "higher living standards" true. 2. Again, this just makes selective socialism seem like a welfare based capitalist economy. So I don't see why you brought up selective socialism at all, since, from your definition, it is so similar to capitalism. 3. I'm not sure what you're getting at with number 3. In your own definition of government, do you mention economic regulation at all. The sole purpose of the law is to uphold justice, not to steal from people with welfare programs. Even though the will is good, things like welfare really is legal stealing. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Just because other people may need it, doesn't give the government the right to take my paycheck and give it to others.
religion should be banned

Yes, the goo outweigh the bad. Because religion has helped individuals very much. You're right, the DaVinci code is not a good source. I don't think religion should be banned in any way. What I'd like to see banned however, is all the hate of atheists now a days. I saw on CNN that atheists are the more discriminated minority. Isn't that unbelievable. I'd love to convince everyone to be atheists like me, but if people have strong beliefs in something else then let them have it. The Nazis were going to kill millions of people anyways. Al-Qaeda would've attacked us anyway. All the Middle Eastern Jihadists would hate America and the state of Israel anyway. It really doesn't have all that much to do with religion. Their fight is over land, not religion.
religion should be banned

like I said, I really just wanted to see what people would say for this, and you said some good reasons. but, would the good outway the bad? You say that your religious friends are, in general, very good people. But what about those that hold extreme belifes? The underground religions, the religions were people get hurt? I hate to bring this up, as it is NOT a good source, but what about the religion in The Devinci Code? There ARE religions like that, were they repent for sins before commiting them, for the bare reason to commit them.
religion should be banned

I agree with you that religion caused a lot of deaths, but we also brought on a lot of peace and love. You provide the Holocaust as an example. But the Holocaust wasn't a matter of religion, it was a matter of race. Gypsies and Jews. "Religion should be banned" is a very strong statement and an overreaction. Since the Neolithic period religion has served as consolation, explanation, etc. for many people. I am an atheist myself, but many times I feel comfortable being around Christians because they tend to be peaceful and pleasant people. The same goes for Muslims. Islam influenced Malcom X to be the great man that he turned out to be. One of my best friends is Jewish and I visit him on Friday nights many times and join his family for Sabbath, it is the nicest thing you could experience. So before saying "religion should be banned" just think about the goodness that religion spread around the world.
religion should be banned

I was thinking over this topic and realised, most of the bad things in the world, of past and present, is because of religion, and i feel that the world would be a lot better if religion was no more. The Jews only died because of their religion, and all the events of today, even the whole fiasco with the prophet Mohammed in Denmark. Saying anyone who insults there religion should be beheaded, I'm sorry but this is completely out of order. Religion should be gone altogether in my eyes. I mean, come on, celebrate members of the church wasting there life away, having no fun whatsoever just to serve a higher being that in my eyes, and obviously most people heres eyes doesn't even exist. i just want to see what everyone else think about this extreme view.
Worst College Admission Essay R2

I took more of a Spinozian route. Collatum idcirco tibi me in vestra schola I. I am a human. II. Your college regularly accepts humans and only humans. It is established: I meet the most basic requirements for admittance to your institution. (Q.E.D.) Axiom I. I am a good student. PROOF. - My transcripts attest to the fact. (Q.E.D.)Axiom II. I performed well on the very standardized tests you use to admit your students. PROOF - Evidenced by the score report sent to you on my behalf by the "College Board", who sent said report at my request, and to whom I paid dearly for this service. PROP 2. You wish to admit only the best and brightest. That being the case, and assuming that you live up to your stated creed, admitting meto your institution follows most logically, while the opposite is completely beyond consideration. PROOF. - My application, and in particular, the glowing recommendations contained therein, verily attest to the fact. (Q.E.D.) DEFINITIONSI. Sensible - so as to produce within the mind a feeling that truth, as opposed to falsehood, is to be expressed by the course of action under consideration, should itbe carried out to its full extent, or to a considerable portion thereof. PROP 3. Your admissions process is fundamentally not sensible. PROOF. - Much of the application process is based on heresy; applicants tell you how they are special and you are required, by the laws of nature and convenience, to take themat their word. It is in their best interest to paint themselves in the most beautiful colors available to them whilst still retaining some amount of plausibility, so as to enhance their chances at admission. You, therefore, should take with great grains of salt the words that come out of their mouths, including mine, so as to lessen the ease with which you fall prey to their lying ways. It follows that muchof the application process is useless, which is indeed, to me at least, not a sensible way to conduct business in any fashion. CORRALLARY. - You are not fit to continue as admissions officers, given your astonishing levels of gullibility, and should therefore resign at the first opportunity nature provides you. (Q.E.D.)
Worst College Admission Essay R2

The role of education is, ostensibly, to teach. But what is teaching? What is being taught? To answer these questions, we must first investigate one much more fundamental: what is being? Being is. Being is. Being is.So it has been shown that "Being is" is not simply "Being is," but rather three divergent themes, much like the piano may produce different melodies with the same keys. Being is - but what is? Being. But being is, is it not? What is is? Is is being. Being. Being.These considerations are very complex, but, when analysed fully, it will be revealed that the only conclusion possible is that you should allow me into your school.
Worst College Admission Essay R2

So like, what's the deal with everything going on these days? Amiright? The world just needs to like, love itself. That is my motto, and I am always true to it. Haha. i wish I could just like, you know? Hahahahah. Okay, so now thats dealt with, lets talk about what really matters: me. Ok, that sounded like SUPER selfish, but these are depserate times, and depserate times call for desperate measures. Amright? This actually makes me think of somethin. Ok, so like the first thing I wanted to discuss was like...yeah. You know what Im saying? So yeah, this is like my essay, and I hope you like, vote for me. Because lets get real, the world needs like, love.
Resolved: Students should be allowed to choose classes in high school

First of all, it's privilege not preivledge, you spelled it wrong. My opponent is obviously stuck on the idea of core classes, which are not bad, but let's be honest, if the students get to choose their own classes, do you honestly think that they will choose to take the core classes, or do you think that they would much rather take the easy way out, and just do all easy, simple electives that require less of their time? It really is a no-brainier, people will choose what is the easiest before they choose the hard things, every time. The only reason somebody would choose the harder things over the easier things, is if they knew that they would be rewarded with some kind of a money reward, or something if they choose to take the harder ones over the easier ones. However since there may be a few students who like their harder, more strenuous core classes that require more time, homework, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Lets make a hypothetical situation. Let's say that you have a school with 2,000 students in it, and you are the principle, and you have hired on 35 teachers. That leaves you with a decent student-teacher ratio of about 57 to 58 students per teacher. That's not that bad of a ratio. Let's say that each one of your teachers earns about $23,000 per year. That's not really that good of a salary, compared to the average national annual income. If your school was a public school, that means that the school would be using $805,000 every year, just to pay the teachers!! That doesn't include the costs for utilities, janitors, security, cooks, etc.. Now lets say that half-way through the year, you decide that you are going to let the students choose their own classes, after you get this approved by the Department of Education. All of the students, except for a small group of about 500 of them decide that they are going to take everything but Algebra. Now your student to teacher ratio has more than doubled, while your student to teacher ratio for algebra has decreased dramatically. What do you do?? Do you try and hire more teachers to accommodate for the unbalanced ratios?? This would end up costing the government at least another $400,000 dollars, just so the students could be happy, and choose their own classes. To me it sounds pretty ridiculous for the students to be able to choose their own classes, considering the fact that, ultimately, it would make our taxes go up, in order to try to manage the new costs of all the extra teachers that would have to be hired on, just to make the ratio of students to teacher balanced.
Resolved: Students should be allowed to choose classes in high school

This may be true, however, you still cannot get around the fact that if all over the students in high school were allowed to pick their own classes, then the student to teacher ratio would be in extreme proportions. Some classes would have a very large amount of student to only one teacher, while other classes would have hardly any students in them. Undoubtedly, the very enjoyable, and extremely educational course of Algebra would be most likely ignored, and not taken. I know of several people that struggle with this class, and wish that they didn't have to take it. It is good for the students to be under subjection to an authority, and to have to go to whatever classes they are assigned to go to. The students are not mature enough to pick their own classes, or they would be doing that already. That time will come for them soon enough, when they get out of high school, and get the privilege to go to college.
Resolved: Students should be allowed to choose classes in high school

That is probably true there, but think about this. Lets just say you have a student that really doesn't like math or science for some strange reason. What is your suggestion there? They will get to pick the classes that they want, so they are probably not going to choose to go to math or science. If this occurs then that student will be greatly hindered in the educational world. He or she will be so far behind in these areas, that finding any kind of a good career or a good college is very close to impossible.
Resolved: Students should be allowed to choose classes in high school

If this was the case then the students would have a tenancy to pick whatever is easiest for them academically speaking. The ACT scores would plummet, and college attendance would decrease due to the fact that nobody is scoring good enough on their ACT tests. This results in a higher unemployment rate due to the fact that they students who weren't able to attend college will have to find a part-time job somewhere, in order to make a living. If they did manage to find a full time job, the income would still be low. On average a person that attends college make $1,000,000 more in their life time than someone who doesn't attend college.
Money cannot give you freedom

I will demonstrate how these people have not gained freedom from money. Person 1) This woman has the freedom to act in any way she pleases. This is not because of money, but rather because of influence. She has a lot of influence because she owns a hotel, which she may or may not have obtained through money. Her personal wealth is irrelevant, but the fact that she owns the hotel is the reason to her freedom. Ownership is not necessarily related to money. Person 2) Who has the freedom here? The boss or the secretary? Both of them are obligated to preform certain tasks, whether it's writing papers or having sex with people. These tasks deprive the persons of the "right to act as one wants", therefore restricting their freedom. Read my first argument in the introduction. Person 3) The father gives the boy an ultimatum: either follow his orders or get kicked out. If he choses to follow the father's orders, the boy is not free, because he does not have "the power to act and one wants." If he gets kicked out, he might have freedom. We don't know, because you didn't give enough information. Does he have a job? In that case, he is not free, as demonstrated in my first argument. If he doesn't have a job, or any other obligations, he could very well be free. But not because of money. Money is completely irrelevant in this example. There you have it. None of these fictional people have gained freedom from money. In fact, the first person is the only one who has true freedom, because of her influence. The second one clearly doesn't. The third one might, but not because of money. I have to admire your imagination while writing these stories, but unfortunately they are rather irrelevant and certainly not supportive of your position.
Money cannot give you freedom

"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants."As con all I have to do is prove that in a single given scenario money CAN give you freedom.I want you to explain how money has not given the three 'made up' people, I shall present, freedom...Person 1) During her Summer holidays, a European woman who owns a very luxurious hotel located in, she chooses to walk around that hotel, in front of many Muslim guests, in next to nothing, to drink at her bar in front of other men and to dress ridiculously inappropriately all the time. When the police arrive to arrest her, the Omani sheikh lets her go free saying that she is their main source of income at this time of year (summer) and that since she financially owns every member of staff and every material object in the hotel she can essentially treat it as her home. Tell me now how anyone of a poorer situation could do the same...Person 2) A boss tells his secretary to either f*ck him senseless or to lose her job. He is located in Uganda and due to his financial situation could easily pay off the police. He is the woman's only source of income and since he holds many shares in the companies of that entire city he can easily influence employers not to hire her and could even, using money, cause her death that night. As she f*cks him, he then demands that she, unlike usual, wears no pants the next day and that if he wishes to do anything to her, she will let him.Person 3) A father tells his son that unless he wants to be kicked out onto the streets living off of welfare food and housing he had better do as he's told. Simple yet effective.Please do enlighten me as to how money is not the sole reason, or at least over 90% of the reason that these people have a ridiculous extent of freedom relative the others mentioned in their scenario.
Money cannot give you freedom

==Introduction== I will argue that people cannot gain freedom from money, and that money in most cases restricts individual freedom. I will use a broad definition of freedom, as described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary [1]: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." True freedom must meet all of the criteria in this definition. ==Arguments== Here are my three main arguments: 1. In order to support yourself with money, you would need certain obligations. There are rare exceptions, e.g. people who win the lottery, or inherit large sums of money. But the vast majority of people need to work in order to receive money. Working is an obligation which forces you to preform certain tasks under certain hours, thereby restricting your "right to act as one wants." One cannot obtain true freedom while working. 2. Money has no real value, but is merely a symbolic entity. Philosophically, one could say that money has a value because everyone agrees it does. It has an imagined value. This value is unstable, as it changes over time and depends upon other people. A sudden inflation, e.g. what happened in Germany after WW1, would render your money useless. Therefore, money can only give you an imagined freedom, which is highly dependent upon other people. This is not true freedom. 3. As a wealthy person, you are most likely in the "public eye" and thus prone to attention. Your actions will be noted by many other people, which is why you are concerned about what you say and how you behave, albeit subconsciously. This limits your "power to act and speak as one wants." People who are wealthy to the point of being recognized by society cannot obtain true freedom. ==Sources== http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Troll Debate

In response to my opponents attack about his llamas being able to disguise themselves, chuck norris can and does. Walker Texas Ranger.Llamas being able to compose music? False. http://www.soundboard.com...thats not music. Walker texas ranger has a theme song. now that is music.A llamas IQ is -2? i accept that fact but it is not higher than an average human. Between 90-110 http://www.brainmetrix.com... -2 is not even close to that making llamas stupid and unable to function. Chuck norris can function therefore he is smarter than a llama.M.E. Llama wrote a book? impossible. it has a -2 IQ so itsimpossible. Provide evidence for that book please. Have you seen Chuck norris's beard to is face? thats a better love story than twilightSpeaking of his beard, chuck norris was born with a beard straight out of the womb to his mother, Wilma Scarberry.Batman is not a llama. He is defender of justice and liberty in Gotham City. Chuck norris is a professional actor. more than any llama. He has mastered the art of Chun kuk Do. Chuck Norris can cut through a knife with butter-----> http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com...When alexander bell invented the telephone, he had three missed calls from Chuck Norris. As you can see, i have provided more accurate and stronger argument than my opponent has and i have provided sources. VOTE Pro!!