BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Experimentation

It"s unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. It"s bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. It"s wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. It"s archaic. Forward-thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests. The world doesn"t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals" lives. Here are the lyrics for kanye west heartless. Lyrics In the night, I hear 'em talk The coldest story ever told Somewhere far along this road, he lost his soul to a woman so heartless How could you be so heartless? Oh, how could you be so heartless? How could you be so, cold as the winter wind when it breeze, yo Just remember that you talkin' to me though You know need to watch the way you talkin' to me, yo I mean after all the things that we've been through I mean after all the things we got into Hey yo, I know of some things that you ain't told me Hey yo, I did some things but that's the old me And now you wanna get me back and you goin' show me So you walk around like you don't know me You got a new friend, well I got homies But in the end it's still so lonely In the night, I hear 'em talk The coldest story ever told Somewhere far along this road, he lost his soul to a woman so heartless How could you be so heartless? Oh, how could you be so heartless? How could be so Dr. Evil, you bringin' out a side of me that I don't know I decided we weren't goin' speak so Why we up three A.M. on the phone Why does she be so mad at me for Homie I don't know, she's hot and cold I won't stop, I won't mess my groove up Cause I already know how this thing go You run and tell your friends that you're leaving me They say that they don't see what you see in me You wait a couple months then you gon' see You'll never find nobody better than me In the night, I hear 'em talk The coldest story ever told Somewhere far along this road, he lost his soul to a woman so heartless How could you be so heartless? Oh, how could you be so heartless? Talkin', talkin', talkin', talk Baby let's just knock it off They don't know what we been through They don't know 'bout me and you So I got something new to see And you just goin' keep hatin' me And we just goin' be enemies I know you can't believe I could just leave it wrong And you can't make it right I'm goin' take off tonight Into the night In the night, I hear 'em talk The coldest story ever told Somewhere far along this road, he lost his soul to a woman so heartless How could you be so heartless? Oh, how could you be so heartless?
Medical Marijuana

Refine the point you are arguing for. When reading through your Initial text, there were several points as to why you should think marijuana should be legal for. Should it be legal to the same extent that cigarettes and alcohol are legal? Should it be legal to cut down on the imprisonment of less dangerous individuals to society and leave space in prisons for violent criminals? Should it be legal for monetary gain to propose a more efficient way of create a federal monetary gain? Should it be legal because it is a means of a perceived safer way of medicating, than man made prescriptions? Should it be legal because that's just what you want? Refine your argument please.
Medical Marijuana

Medical Marijuana should be legal in all states because trying to only provide it to clients and not a regular citizen creates more problems in society. A majority of marijuana users find themselves abusing it more than using it as a prescription. It is nearly impossible to keep it only for clients, so why make the job harder for the police departments and try to arrest anyone who carries marijuana. Marijuana is not a serious drug and does not make anyone become violent, yet this generation acts as though it is a crime to enjoy your own free time and relaxing to a natural plant that grows from this earth. What one person is doing to de-stress should not bother anyone else. Although it is rare to hear about someone using medical marijuana for it's main purpose (easing of pain/illness). In 2010, researchers at Harvard Medical School suggested that that some of the drug's benefits may actually be from reduced anxiety, which would improve the smoker's mood. Although some may say that medical marijuana does more harm than it does good, there is plenty of evidence to counteract this. In addition to Medical Marijuana helping to prevent seizures, it can also help to stop cancer cells from spreading. According to an article written by Kevin Loria and Jennifer Welsh, "Cannabinoids like the active ingredients in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC), control seizures by binding to the brain cells responsible for controlling excitability and regulating relaxation." Loria and Welsh go on to claim that "CBD may also help prevent cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007."
Resolved, Evolution Is False

Thank you for posting your arguments, of course this will be a friendly debate. Good luck! 1. The history of the earth is very long The earth is 4.6 billion years old, that is a lot of time! Even if we were to assume the earth had only started when the bible created the first man (time of adam and eve), that would be 10000 to 4000 BC (based on number of generations stated in the bible before Jesus). Which is actually the time when humans started "appearing" on earth. The rate at which DNA modifies is very little. From the time when the first man started "existing" to today, (around 12000 to 6000 years), assuming an average age for giving birth for a woman is 240 to 480 generations. With only 240 to 480 generations, people who move to new environments have already adapted to the change and changed physically according to the surroundings. Dark people have separated from light coloured people, people nowadays have much less body hair because they do not require it and people are increasing in size because of recent nutrition advancements in the 20th century. If we were to extrapolate this change to over the time apes have started appearing on earth (8 million years ago), you can definitely imagine the change to be much greater. 2. Evolution doesn't comprise of just natural selection Evolution is a huge term related to much larger number of factors, the environment being the biggest. The environment affects the human in many ways. There are direct ways such as lack of sunlight (as PRO commented). The lack of sunlight reduces the body necessity to produce chemicals that "tan" the skin. Thus the skin for northern mammals in general are lighter. The indirect way of evolution is that the changes in the environment make some kind of organism more advantages. For example: The grizzly bear and the polar bear probably evolved from the same bear, we do not know what color that bear which was evolved from looked like, but the lighter of the bears started moving to the north because they have a predator advantage there (camouflage). 3. In nature there is no real time where we can exact a change in species The selective breeding of dogs have only started in the 1900s and in the 2000s, (in dog years that is around 10 generations) the selective breeder dogs look only slightly different. It is almost the same as breeding a black man and a white man and ending up with a brown man. The word species is a relative term, when apes evolved into humans, there is a slow and steady change in the DNA over time. But there is no exact time when we can call a ape a human. The time when the characteristic ancestral "ape" appeared on earth is 80 million years. Assuming fertility at 20 years, an overestimate), that is around 4 million generations! It can be expected that if we selectively breed dogs for 4 million generations, then we wouldn't even recognize the dog anymore. Scientists can then consider the difference to be considered a new "species".
Resolved, Evolution Is False

I hope that this will be a friendly debate, in which we state out sides of the argument. Number one, The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or law of biology. To be a scientific law, it must be 100% correct and have proof to back it up. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof. If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
Resolved, Evolution Is False

I am a strong Believer in the Bible, and I want to argue with someone on the Evolution side. I don't want to argue about Micro Evolution, but about Monkeys to Man thing. I never understood this, and I wanted to see another person's point of view. Beware that this is my first online debate, so I am not used to this kind of debating. I know that Micro Evolution exists by the will of the Lord Jesus, but I believe that the Monkey to Man is a bunch of *excuse me...* crap.
Religion, how it contradicts, is judgeful,questionable,and what the true religion could possibly be

I understand what you are saying completely. But What I feel is that you might have misinterpreted my statement. See I also said that I believe it was all made by man. At the least of 90% of religion or religious devotion is like brain wash. So the judging does not come from God himself but from man and the social norm he provides us with.Who knows what God really wants and what he really expects? So What I am saying is that what is the difference between those religions that you had mentioned and christianity? What about the mass suicides and the islamic religion, what is the difference? Would you say they are both man made? Or is christianity more important or more believable? So I guess I should be more specific about the religions I am talking about. Christianity, Islamic, judiasm, catholicism, buddaism, etc. But like I said, just because one is more popular than the other arent they all the same? With that being the case what is the true religion?
Religion, how it contradicts, is judgeful,questionable,and what the true religion could possibly be

I believe that some religions can be wrong. However, they will not be theologically incorrect, but morally incorrect. For example, take the Peoples Temple, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, Solar Temple,or Heaven's Gate. All of these cult's ended up committing massive, forced suicides. How can a religion that advocates mass murder be considered right? Another way religions can go wrong is if they advocate or force their members into harmful situations. As an example of this, consider the recent court trial of a rominent Mormon leader. He forced a 14 year old girl to marry against her will, and her "husband then raped her repeatedly. How can you ever advocate rape just because a religion authorizes it? Often times religions will "brainwash" Their member's into following their orders, and will then make them murder or war by order of the church. An example of this would be the Uandan religous group the holy Spirit movement, which ended up effectively becoming an army, fighting against the government and sustaining horrific casualties. Another example of when religion has been bad would be the Children's Crusade. Thanks to their blind devotion to their god early 30,000 children marched to take back the Holy Land. In the ends nearly all of them starved, were killed, or were sold into slavery. A less extreme example would be Scientology. Scientology's bogus rituals to "purify the spirit", all cost money. In essence, scientology is a pyramid scheme. It has ruined hundreds of people fiancially and destroyed lives. Scientologists have even forced people to sell their homes to finance further "treatments". To sum up my debate, you have said that religions can not be "judgeful" or questionable, to quote. you have also stated that there can be no bad or wrong religions. To disprove you I have supplied a huge list of times when religions have done or advocated things which where horribly, horribly wrong, and definitively prove that religions can be wrong. (I am not saying all religion is bad, but I AM saying that not all religion is right.)
Religion, how it contradicts, is judgeful,questionable,and what the true religion could possibly be

I didnt really want to say i was against this topic due to the fact that i believe in God and Jesus including what was done for us, to a point. But at the same time i believe a lot of the "good book" was manmade. I feel that when it comes to religion, no exact religion can be wrong if it is a true belief of God and what he has done. But what i do consider is whether what people have been fed is everyones own interpretaion of the bible and other religions from those who preach. then i question this, a person can write a story right now concerning a nonfictional event or character and tell everyone it is real and that it was historical, especially by doing their studies and tying it in with other events, so if a person can do that now then why not then? or seeings how religion was so important masses needed to be slaughtered then maybe it was a form of control and if no one complied they were eradicated. so does it just come down to what a person really believes in their hearts? i feel that is the case and that there is truth in all religions or all things period. i definitely believe there is a heaven and a hell, but i also believe that because i believe that i will be going to one or the other when i pass and my judgemnet will be up to me considering on how guilty i feel my heart is. but i will not say that a person who thinks they will die and wake up some time later, maybe thousands of years later as a dog or a new person. I believe that could be a good possibilty due to my indecision on whats out there waiting for us.
abortion should be illegal everywhere

We generally reserve the word "human" or "child" to refer to a thinking, feeling being. So calling an embryo an "unborn child" is odd, since it masks clear distinctions between an (unconscious) embryo and a (thinking, feeling) child. In short, pro-choicers can say: abortion isn't murder because until there's a mature nervous system, there's no conscious person, just a potential consciousness (a clump of cells). Nor is there any pre-existing (dormant) consciousness, as there'd be in the case of a sleeping or comatose person. So, I'm suggesting the following equation: person = existing or pre-existing consciousness = mature nervous system. Sources: http://truthsite.org...
abortion should be illegal everywhere

a child does not deserve to die because her mother and father were responsible. each other completely innocent. A child did not decide that his parents would have unprotected sex. An unborn child is always innocent and should never be punished. abortion can also harm the woman. in many cases women's lives are lost through abortion. abortion takes - it kills - an innocent human being. time does not erase murder or ease the reality of what it is. abortion is a cruel tragedy but it is also a choice that should never be made
Should the death penalty be abolished

I will go over each of your arguments one by one. ARGUMENT 1: You said that most people would want someone who murdered someone else to be put to death. Wouldn't it be hypocritical to do punish someone by doing the exact same thing to them that they did to their victim? Wouldn't it make us murderers as well? It would be like saying this. if your friend punched you would it be right to punch him back? If you think that it is wrong for someone to punch you, what makes you think that punching him is okay? ARGUMENT 2: Even though only 4% of people on death row die innocently, that is still a number. How would you feel if you were one of those people? How do you think your family would feel if they found out you got the death sentence for doing nothing? You also said that people convert to religion before death and therefore have a hope of an afterlife. If this is the case, then shouldn't we just kill every religious person as they will have a hope of an afterlife? ARGUMENT 3: You said that the death penalty serves as a deterrent for murder because criminals have a fear of being put to death rather than being sentenced to life imprisonment. If this is true, than why are the murder rates lower in states without the death penalty? I gave reasons in my last argument for why this happens. I will give them again here. A lot of the time the murders people commit are either when they are mentally ill, on drugs or alcohol, or when they are in a fit of rage and kill someone without weighing in the consequences. As a result, the death penalty does not work as a proper deterrence to crime. ARGUMENT 4: You said that an eye for an eye is how everything should work. But as I have already mentioned, it is hypocritical to do the same thing someone else did to you. ARGUMENT 5: In terms of the closure argument it can honestly go either way. There are a lot of cases in which the family feels closure, and a lot of cases in which they feel more trama. ARGUMENT 6: You said that if executions were in a public stadium where people had to pay to watch the executions, death sentences would be a lot cheaper. Let me point out that this is by far the cruelest, most immoral thing you could ever do to somebody and would HANDS DOWN make innocent deaths that much worse than they already are. You also said that decreasing the amount of court cases there are would make the death penalty cheaper. This would make it cheaper, but would also make the number of innocent people who die skyrocket. ARGUMENT 7: You are right when you say that executioners could quit their job at any time, but this argument doesn't just check out. Someone has to do the job of executing evil-doers and if everyone refused to be an executioner, the government would be forced to abolish the death penalty as there would be no one to actually complete the sentence.
There should be a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it (DDO)

I have an even simpler solution that involves voting without reading the debate: counter vote bombing.This assumes that all illegitimate votes are vote bombs. It's not necessarily easy to tell from a vote if the voter read the debate, or more realistically, the whole thing (which is important especially when it comes to voting accurately on all the secions) If Con takes the time to put together a superb argument, then just because Pro ignores the resolution or violates one of the rules is not a reason to ignore Con's argument or close the debate. Instead, it is important for people to vote for Con so that Con's effort can be rewarded with a win.If Con takes the time to put together a superb argument, and pro ignores the resolution, Con should take his argument elsewhere and start a new debate. People should not be rewarded for winning a debate for technicalities such as those you described. These kinds of debates should in NO way hinder valid, legitimate debates. They should be dealt in ways other than counting them as wins, such as voiding them. How does not setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it devalue a debate where one side forfeits?I never said it did. The debate you describe has nothing of value, and therefore, should not be given priority of legitimate debates. This is unrelated to the resolution. Regardless of whether or not troll debates, etc are allowed or reported, there is no reason not to make setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it optional. Indeed, not setting a limit makes it is easier for people to counter obvious vote bombs without having to read the debate.Why should people get to counter vote bomb without reading the debate? Voters have the obligation to read the debate before they vote, no matter what. Sometimes people counter vote a legitimate vote just beacause the point value is high. Since there is at least one legitimate reason for not setting a time requirement before voting (counter votes), vote Con.This is a non sequitur. There are always Pros and Cons to every proposed idea, and arguing an idea has a con does not mean it's not a justified resolution. Just because you pointed out times where this proposal could fall short does not mean you showed these negatives outweigh the positives of implementing this system. I say higher quality, more accurate and more honest voting is much more important than preserving the accessibility of voting on illegitimate debates. Also, I could not find "make the option of" into this debate's title. Despite this, the title is defendable for a very valid reason: -The title does not imply that I am arguing for debate.org forcing this idea upon everyone without an option JUST as much as it says that I support this as an option when one makes a debate.