BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Rights

Definitions Seeing how no definitions were presented on the part of Pro, the definitions of Con will stick for the rest of the round. Right: Legal contract granting and restricting capabilities (SEP 2010) Value Value: Justice, defined as the administration of what is just or fair (Webster 2010) Value Criterion: VC: Utilitarianism, defined as granting the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people (Princeton 2009) Observation 1: Animals do not possess the ability to create contracts. This means that they cannot possess rights, according to my definition of a right. Not recognizing animal rights creates a utilitarian benefit. Roger Scruton said in 2000, that "Animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights", including utility toward their benefit. "Rights in some way stem from the capacity for sophisticated abstract thought. They come from an implicit contract made between the members of society, and even the smartest animals are unable to comprehend the concept of the social contract. (Kant, on Contractualism)" Any "bad thing" we can do to animals is morally neutral because they don"t have emotions or the ability to create rights at the level humans do. (Cognitive Structure of Emotions) Roger Scruton argues that rights imply obligations. Animals cannot fulfill any obligations, and therefore cannot be granted rights. IMPACT: It would not make sense, under utility toward Justice, to recognize animal rights. Having rights implies that you are able to enter into a social contract, which animals cannot do. Any society who recognizes members as having rights who do not also have obligations, undermines its own utility and therefore Justice. OTHER REASONS I. The usefulness of Animal Experimentation Researchers trying to treat and prevent diseases have depended on animal testing for decades. According to the Foundation of Biomedical Research, "animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century." Animal testing requires that we don"t recognize animal rights. Animal research led to the development of anesthetics, insulin, transplants, and vaccines. The Department of Health and Human services states that "animal experimentation has increased our average lifespan by 23.5 years. It is also key to cancer research and AIDS treatment. "You can"t be for aids research AND animal rights" (Americans for Medical Progress 2011) The British Royal Society and the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S National Academy of Sciences argue that "virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way", and that "even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas." Thx much!
Animal Rights

In the modern world that we live in, most people walk around blindly, while eating meat, wearing fur, and using animal-tested merchandise. However, these people do not know the torture that animals have to go through in order for us to have things that we could easily live without, while these animals can"t live without them. There are always little children who beg their parents to go see the circus to see tigers jump through flaming wheels, a juggling bear, or lions standing on their hind feet, dancing with their paws. Unlike the human acrobats and clowns who choose to spend life this way, thousands of animals in circuses are forced to do humiliating tricks with bull hooks, whips, clubs, and electric prods. Each of these circus animals have to spend up to 11 months in a tiny boxcar, and kept in chained enclosures. Separated from their friends and family, they live a living nightmare. Very few laws exist enforcing care for animals in the circus, and if any, they are incredibly vague and poorly enforced. Also, there are public safety and health violations, where animals are driven mad and attempt to escape the captivity, seriously harming people in the audience or the animal trainers. In order for us to have a two-hour show of "fun," most animals will pay their lives. Thank you.
Dogs are better than cats

Dogs can hunt, cats can too. However, cats hunt rats, which is considered as pest to humans. Therefore, cats maintain the population of rats, so our cities wouldn't be overrun by rats. Besides that, cats are cleaner than dogs. Cats have the ability to self-clean and dispose of their droppings themselves. Unlike dogs, they dirty the place, leaving a mess for their owners to clean up. Other than that, let me state that cats are not considered as mean, naughty, tricky or harmful. Just because of a few cats are , doesn't mean all cats are. Therefore, your point doesn't count. Furthermore, cats are quiet, so they don't disturb the neighbourhood or other people' sleep. This maintains a peaceful environment for all. In conclusion, cats are cleaner, quieter and most beneficial than dogs. Therefore, cats are better than dogs.
Dogs are better than cats

Dogs are better than cats because cats are independent and hates people (sometimes) but dogs are more friendlier in general and is very loyal. Big dogs can be trained very easily and can also serve as a bodyguard. there are even some that saved lives. even some humans cant save a life because they are too cowardly, but some dogs will give their lives to save their owners/masters. Dogs can hunt prey, carry things, guide blind people, cure sadness of people, and serve as an loyal bodyguard and friend its whole life, while cats are drawn in people's minds as tricky, naughty, mean, and sometimes even harmful to others. So obviously, DOGS ARE BETTER THAN CATS
Christianity inhibits US advancement

Con has stated that " Since Pro is “not experienced in debates,” Con will debate, what Pro “believes,” Religion inhibits US advancements. " I assert that such distinction is trivial because over 3/4 of Americans are Christian, and it does not affect the topic of debate. I believe Con is (still) confused as demonstrated in their acceptance" I (Con) would like to learn from Pro, what religion Pro is using as a reference to claim "Christianity inhibits US advancement? "I claim that 'Christianity inhibits US advancement', Con has also stated that" Today's Congress represents the lobbyist not the people "I could not agree more! In fact, I agree with several points Con made in his rebuttal. However, there is little in Con's rebuttal that is relevant to this debate, with most of the text being devoted to the history of religion in the US. Events of the Enlightenment era and other times are insignificant in regards to this debate.Con does nothing to contest my assertion that Christianity (as well as other religions) impairs educational and scientific growth. Con also fails to address my assertion that the US political scene would be simpler and more productive if Christianity did not exist.Based on these facts alone we can conclude that Christianity inhibits US advancement.
Christianity inhibits US advancement

I argue that Christianity inhibits advancement of the United States. For this debate, let's define advancement as 'development or improvement' Before I begin, let me take this opportunity to point out that I am not here to attack Christianity or Christians. The debate is centered on the negative influence of Christianity (or lack thereof, as Con might argue) on the United States in key elements of advancement such as politics, finance, education, and our society in general. I am not arguing that Christianity is inherently bad, only that it's influence is having a negative impact on elements listed above. As such, I will accept the BoP and allow my opponent (Con) the last word. The first round is simply for terms/acceptance of those terms, beyond that there will be 3 rounds, 24 hours each. This is an open debate with open voting, voters will have 3 days to select a winner.
Christianity inhibits US advancement

Con is waiting for the Burden of Proof (BoP) from Pro that “Christianity inhibits US advancement.”Pro cherry picked some scripture terms in Round 2 but failed to prove how Christianity “has a negative impact on education.” In fact, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) summary, “In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools...” In general, those “Christian” schools did better or the same as public schools. http://nces.ed.gov...As for politics Pro's criteria centered on the “prime example: gay marriage.” That debate should also include the historical cultural norms of marriage and biology, which Pro failed to mention and differentiate. If “Christianity inhibits US advancement,” why is it, that in a short period of 200-years, the US changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today?
Homeschooling is a viable and dependable form of education

First of all thank you for replying to me. Secondly, I am terribly sorry for your loss of a friend however an anxiety problem and a car accident are not results of home schooled education. Many parents will privately educate their children at home because of mental problems like anxiety and depression. Your argument sounds more of a personal problem and that should not be your reason against homeschooling. Again, I apologize for such a tragedy but this is not a viable argument against me. Many times over, Home schooled children who suffer with anti-social tendencies and mental problems benefit from a private education. There are also programs that allow certain children to make friends and slowly cope with their problems. As much as i hate to say, there are some children who just cannot move out of or cope with a mental problem and usually live their lives as anti-social adults but thanks to the benefit of homeschooling, which you have said yourself, helps children to grow in intelligence and helps concentrate with difficult things in life. With the topic of your friend, something like that only happens by accident and should not be blamed on her education. On the topic of the lack of social interaction, many children are not trained to be social and do suffer in work environments, but again, this is not a product of private home school. I have met many children who cannot even look me in the eye because of anxiety and lack of social interaction but a fair mix of them are home schooled and public schooled. Again, thank you for your reply.
Homeschooling is a viable and dependable form of education

I highly doubt no one has ever not had at least one friendless, lonely time n their lives. When it seems like everyone is against you and no matter what you do, no one will change. Approximately 1,770,000. Of course homeschooling does have its comforting environment and familiar surroundings, but as soon as the kid is pushed out in the real world. An old friend of mine is dead. Car accident. She was home schooled all her life, throughout high school she never left the house because she was taught at home. She never knew boundaries, nor did she learn social interaction. When it came time for her to get a job, she developed serious anxiety because she had never gone into school when growing up, she had never experienced a working environment. Driving home from work one day, she had a panic attack. She had anxiety about a workplace function, and how when she was a kid, school disco's were something she had only seen in movies. She didn't even have anyone to go with as I was in a different country on holidays. I found when I got back that she crashed her car in a t-bone with another. Homeschooling made her smart and able to concentrate. But the one thing home schooling did, was kill her because she had no idea what social interaction was. We met because her parents set me up with her because she had no idea how to meet people. In my opinion, homeschooling may be great for education, but when it all gets down to it, she never learend what an important student should do.
Homeschooling is a viable and dependable form of education

Homeschooling is a viable and dependable form of education especially to mentally delayed children who cannot learn on a federal level. The use of Private Homeschooling benefits the minds of developmental children who can tap into creativity and the art of thought through a familiar place of education instead of a federally funded program with teachers who have a very little income and lack proper knowledge of adolescent and developmental forms of teaching which cause Public Schools to feel more like prisons instead of a place of education. Most Public Schools lack much needed funding resulting in poor lunch meals, faulty forms of discipline, and hostile attitudes from students to teachers and vice versa. Since a large amount of children actually learn and understand better through alternate forms of education aside from publicly funded schools, Homeschooling should be encouraged immensely and should be recommended more often to parents of children with mental delays.
what do you think the age is for a teenager to have sex at

Ok, so from what am hearing from you is that its ok if the person cares about you and actually loves you... So bare with me for a second....Girls grow closer in relationships with guys sexually...They feel more loved by doing sexual things. Now what happens when you find out that he dons actually love u he was using you for the sex... If you are in a relationship it would help me figure out more if you can answer these...1. Are you dating a guy currently 2. Did he ever ask to do anything sexual...only answer if u want just trying to help :))
what do you think the age is for a teenager to have sex at

i dont think waiting intill u are married but i think you should when your ready , and personally i have never had sex as well but its something i hear people talking about a lot because i think if you think ready to have sex with some one you should it doesnt matter what people will think of you , you know whats true not them , and as a 15 year old girl i know how what they say and think my hurt but i all ways think who cares they dont know me i know me and what they are saying is not true i know what is not them it doesnt matter ! :)
The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

For those of you reading this, you probably clicked the debate because you have heard someone on this very website or even in real life use this excuse for why the US had invaded Iraq, and thought that the person who created this debate believes in this idea. I however am con because time and time again while in debates, whenever the morality or the conduct of the US was called into question I would always find one or two trolls who simply state that "it is a known fact that the US invaded Iraq just for their oil." as a reason to dismiss the idea that the US tries to act with good intentions or are trying to help mankind, but offer no proof or evidence at all. I issue this challenge to any one who is reading this who honestly believes that oil was the number one priority for the invasion of Iraq. Accept this challenge on behalf of all the other misinformed Bush-haters, and try to prove that the US is so oil crazy that it was the number one reason why the US invaded Iraq. 5 rounds, 8000 characters, Con may use the first round to state their arguments Good luck
The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

I literally have 4 minutes to post, so unfortunately I cannot provide a detailed rebuttal to my opponent's last round (I explained in the comments section that I had both class and work two days in a row). My apologies.As a final conclusion, I'd like to point out that Con cannot rely on the "Her sources suck" element as a rebuttal to my points. Even if the sources were biased sites (such as sites that recognize Bush for the incompetent ignoramus he is, and point it out blatantly), that in itself is not a rebuttal to my contentions. If the points are true, then it doesn't matter where I sourced the information from. Con has not proven that any of my points weren't true, therefore they all have merit.Throughout this debate, it became blatantly obvious that oil was definitely a factor in choosing to invade Iraq. The links between the administration and their gains from the decision proves ulterior motives. Now, did GWB believe he was truly doing a good thing by invading Iraq? Maybe. Maybe even probably. However even if there were multiple incentives (and I have said innumerable times there were), we still cannot avoid the fact that oil was a BIG, i.e., primary factor. Even if it wasn't a factor for GWB directly (even though I've demonstrated the links between him, his oil buddies and their profit, ultimately benefitting him and his campaign), it was certainly a factor for Cheney which I've proven had a lot of sway behind the scenes.I've clearly demonstrated the reasons as to why oil was a very important (primary) reason for invading Iraq, even though the U.S. did have other gains both economically and politically.
The god of the bible would not be stupid enough, Not ever, To use text as a form of communication

Honestly, You are the worst at debating I have ever seen. You have forgotten about the topic of the debate as well. You have given me an impossible task to complete within two days. You have also said I used "spanky words" in my debate while you constantly curse at me. This is not how you debate. Your also proving my point about this being an insult rant. In fact you've done the opposite, You have strengthend my believe that God exsists. So heres something for you, We"re done until you can prove that the god of the bible does not exsist. The rules for you to prove that my god does not exsist are as follows" You test, Demonstrate my god"s falseness. Then once that"s done you assert that my god does not exist. Then once that"s done you declare my god does not exist. Then once that"s done you present your findings of my god"s un-existence to oh say at least 100 religous communities from around the world of merit. Each of these religous communities will not be scientifically affiliated in any way. If each of them agrees with your findings that my god does not exist, Then this debate can continue. Regardless, The rules of this debate will still stand and they are" "Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. " Good luck completing that. I could've used all of my points from above to disporve what you just said. It seems like you didn't even read my debate at all! And taking it out on my age? How immature! Probably as immature as someone of my age for that matter. Now please answer my question. "What other form of communication would God have used other than text? " It seems you have not proven that text is the worst form of communication or that God would be stupid enough to use it. While I on the other hand have argued why God used text. You merely tried to trap me, To catch me into you trying to prove God doesn't exsist. You have been doing this for 2 years on this site, Harrassing everyone because of their beliefs and it seriously needs to stop now. I will not be apoligizing and if you forfeit well. . . I guess I beat you.
The god of the bible would not be stupid enough, Not ever, To use text as a form of communication

"Oh god, Here we go again, Another one of your insult rants about how God doesn't exists. " OK so since you think your god does exist, We"re done until you can prove that your god does exist. The rules for you to prove that your god exists are as follows" You test, Demonstrate your god"s existence. Then once that"s done you assert that your god exists. Then once that"s done you declare your god exists. Then once that"s done you present your findings of your god"s existence to oh say at least 100 scientific communities from around the world of merit. Each of these scientific communities will not be religiously affiliated in any way. If each of them agrees with your findings that your god exists, Then this debate can continue. Regardless, The rules of this debate will still stand and they are" "Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. " Should you decide to not participate, Then too bad, Deal with it teeny bopper 13 year old in which you shouldn"t have opened your gaping ridiculous dimwitted dullard snot meat sow maw who happens to think he so f--kig smart but is not smarter than a goats head pretending to be a mule. Got it? Orrrrrrrr you can apologize and state what a jacka$$ you were to have thrown your stupid little temper tantrum and that you were wrong to use the little spanky words that you used. If you do this, The debate can continue. If not, Oh well. I"m so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
The god of the bible would not be stupid enough, Not ever, To use text as a form of communication

I know you backwardsedan so let's try to keep this on topic. First of all, The bible was not written by God, It was written by the apostles and in the old testament, God's followers. So, There has to be a least some mistakes and contradictions since these are all things they saw from different perspectives. (And if your seeing miracles you don't know how to explain it. ) The only thing they could've done to keep all of Jesus's words was through written communication at the time. What else would they have used? You don't seem to have any other idea why. Text is probably one of the greatest forms of communication, It's used EVERYWHERE in fact we're using it right now. When the first hieroglyph was painted on the wall, That was monumental to evolution and mankind. We would have no records of history without it! The New Testament was written in the 1st century AD, And was only The New Testament. The Bible was a collection of both The Old Testament and The New Testament and these were both collections of many books. The Bible was officially put together in 400 A. D by St. Jerome, So how could the original Bible survive for 1619 years? Many more bibles were written translated roughly and sent across the world spreading the word of God. This caused the Bible to become slightly inaccurate, Which I have to admit you got correct. Written communication can survive through copies unlike other forms like oral. God didn't decide to make it written, Man did. Jesus went out and performed all these miracles in front of his apostles and they wanted to record it to be able to share God's word. God did not write the Bible. You should probably rename this debate as it's inaccurate because the "God of the Bible" didn't write the bible or tell the apostles to write the New Testament. There is no record of him telling them to.