BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

Throughout this debate, Pro has argued that animal testing is needed because it has helped humans in the past. After admitting that it is not accurate, he argued that it should continue despite the animal cruelty, which he also agreed with, as it will improve in the future, and might help more humans. What my opponent was unable to refute is that there are currently more accurate tests that do not harm animals, and as these are very accurate currently, there's no need to continue harming animals on the off chance that humans will be helped. My opponent was quick to mention that animal testing helped with polio, but there is no evidence that humane testing could not also have accomplished this. Pro failed to provide evidence for his statement that humane alternatives are more expensive than animal testing. As animal testing is not accurate, experiments have to be run multiple times, wasting money. In paragraph seven of my opponent's last round, he mentions "[animals] share almost the same human system." This is just not true, as my earlier sources have backed up. In addition, it's just common sense that if animals were that similar to humans, we would see more than an 8% accuracy rate of medical tests on animals. "Some questions can only be answered by animal research. All the technologies in the world cannot replace the immense benefit of animals in research, as the technologies themselves cannot replace the genes and other systems of the animal body." I ask the same question. If this were the case, we would see a significantly greater success rate with tests on animals, than the current one we do see, and that of alternate methods. My opponent has relied on mentioning several diseases that were researched in the past with animal testing, but I felt no need to respond to each individually, as he didn't prove they couldn't be solved with humane testing. "Pro oppose researching on animals, yet he supports a method that research on humans. How nice." As I mentioned in the last round, testing on humans is not only accurate, but very safe, as only very small doses of medication are administered, so small in-fact, that they only affect humans on a cellular level. If this sort of testing were done on animals, it might be acceptable, but it is not done, as the lives of animals are not important in animal testing. Finally, I'd just like mention the strong bias in Pro's sources. In the last round, for instance, you see that two of my opponent's three sources are from organizations that attempt to convince the public that animal testing is needed. The statements is Pro's last paragraph quoted from these sources are simply false. As I have shown in this debate, animal testing is inhumane, not accurate, and not needed. Money should be spent on further developing the already accurate humane test methods, so that we can advance medicine for humans and animals. For these reasons, please vote con. I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun debate. Good luck at college!
This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

Pro's case is that although animal testing is not accurate now, and it is cruel to animals, this is because humans are not perfect, and we should continue testing as in the future, we will be able to conduct more accurate tests. First of all, my opponent has shown no evidence for this statement, and it is a total guess to assume that in the future, we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals. Secondly, there are humane alternatives to animal testing that will also continue to be more accurate in the future, and even at the current time, are more accurate than animal testing! I never mentioned anything about perfection in this debate, but my point was that if there are better alternatives, why care about animal testing? My opponent has not yet refuted any of the evidence I have provided for alternate methods, but I will bring up a few more anyway. One of the most common ways to test is "in vitro" testing, which involves performing tests on human cell and tissue cultures. Not only is this more humane, it is also more accurate. In a test to see what was more accurate for detecting chemicals that would irritate human skin, EpiDerm, an "in vitro" test, identified 100% correctly, as opposed to animal testing, which had a 40% error rate. Some more alternatives include computer based testing, stem cell testing, and microdosing, which involves administering very small amounts of a drug that only affect a human on a cellular level, by far the most accurate way to test! http://bit.ly... My opponent has only mentioned past scenarios such as polio, and while polio was in fact researched with animal testing, it is very possible that there would have been the same result with humane testing! Pro accused animal advocates of getting in the way of scientific advancements, but in fact, supporting animal testing is not helping research, it's hindering it! It's cruel, inaccurate, and simply not needed. The money that is going towards animal testing could be transferred to improving the already accurate humane testing, and humans and animals alike could have better lives!
This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

My opponent mentioned that I "used the wording of the sources." I invite the voters to look for themselves, as at no point did I use the wording of the sources I provided. Firstly, my opponent agreed that animal testing is not accurate, as you can see in his fourth and fifth paragraphs. Pro argues that even though animal testing is not accurate, it should continue! My opponent made the point that if we continue animal testing, it will become more accurate, but this is not the case. Mice and other animals are not humans, and that won't change! Pro was correct in stating that animal testing helped find the cure for polio, but this is not a good indication of future results. As I mentioned in the last round, more sophisticated and accurate testing methods that did not exist when polio was being researched are available to us, and because of this, there is no reason to test on animals. "Researching on animals does not end life." This is an absurd statement. By the very nature of animal testing, it ends lives. The problem with animal testing is that the lives of animals are ended on the very slight chance that it will help humans. As my opponent has admitted that animal testing is not accurate, being cruel to animals cannot be justified. If testing on animals had a 100% chance, or even a 50% of helping humans, it might be justified, but this is not the case. This could turn into a long and rather opinionated debate about the value of human life versus animal life, but it doesn't need to, because animals are essentially tortured, for a very slim chance that humans will be saved, and because animal testing is not the only option, and certainly not the best, this is not acceptable. My opponent has fallen back on common arguments. " If a girl is dying and a animal is in pain, which one would you rather be attentive to?" This implies that animal testing is the only option to help the girl, when in fact, it probably won't help at all. Pro's main case is that animal testing can help humans, and human lives are more important than those of animals, but, as I've said multiple times before, animal testing is not accurate and rarely helps humans, and because of this, animal cruelty cannot be justified.
This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

Animal testing is not needed in bio-medical research testing as it is not accurate, it is cruel to animals, and there are better alternatives. Firstly, I'd like to mention that my opponent"s definition of animal, "a living organism other than a human being," would actually include plants, as they are living organisms. I"d like to thank my opponent for not using this loophole. My first contention is that testing on animals is not accurate. According to the FDA, more than 92% of tests that pass when tested on animals, fail after being tested on humans. Of the remaining 8% of drugs that do pass, about half must be relabeled when unexpected side effects that did not occur in animals happen. One specific example of the uselessness of animal testing is if the steroid methylprednisolone is effective in helping people with spinal cord injury. 62 different studies were performed on the following animals, with the following results: Cats: Mostly Effective Dogs: Mostly Effective Rats: Mostly Ineffective Mice: Always Ineffective Monkeys: Effective Sheep: Ineffective Rabbits: Inconclusive With all this varying evidence, scientists were unable to draw conclusions, and the effectiveness of the steroid on humans is still known. Testing on animals provided no help whatsoever. http://huff.to... Lastly, one example of animal testing leading to a decline in human health was the pass of the drug thalidomide in animal testing. Designed to help with morning sickness, the medicine ended up leading to more than 10,000 birth defects or fetal deaths. http://bit.ly... Many of the most respected medical schools in the nation, including Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, no longer train medical students with experimentation on live animals or dissection. In fact, only just over 5% of medical schools continue to use animals. This brings me to my second contention. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. As can be seen in the undercover video linked to below, animal testing, by the very nature of it, is cruel to animals. Animals are subjected to injuries and made ill to test drugs, and to be observed, and they are often killed. http://bit.ly... Animals are sentient beings that feel pain and have emotions, and hurting and killing them is cruel. While some argue that human lives are more valuable than that of other animals, the basic problem with animal testing is that lives are ended on the off-chance that more lives might one day be improved, which rarely happens. Finally, I"ll briefly discuss some of the more effective alternatives to animal testing. Non-invasive clinical and epidemiological studies on humans, tissue and cell-based research, advanced computer simulations, and an artificial brain created from brain cells, called a "micro-brain." http://bit.ly... I look forward to my opponent"s rebuttals.
This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

Sorry to hurt animals lovers and advocates out there. But...This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research for the advancement and the well-being of humans.For the purpose of this debate, these definitions are as stated:Need: require (something) because it is essential or very importantAnimals: a living organism other than a human beingBio-medical Research: is the broad area of science that involves the investigation of the biological process and the causes of disease through careful experimentation, observation, laboratory work, analysis, and testing.Advancement: development or improvement.Well-Being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happyHumans: Mankind; the human race; humanity.All definitions herein are as stated; other definition propose is contrary, and shall not be accepted.I, YoungLawyer, taking the pro side in this heated case, shall defend for the research, the advancement of, and the well-being of humans through bio-medical research on animals, and others points that shall come up throughout the debate; while rebutting to statements that my opponent may use.Round 1: Acceptance only, with a brief opening.Round 2: Presenting points (max: 10) and defending them (my opponent shall make no rebuttals) Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttal Round 4: Arguments/RebuttalRound 5: Final Arguments/Rebuttals/Closing statements.
0.9999 (repeating) = 1

For my final piece of evidence I direct you to wolframalpha, a website designed to do any type of math. This site allows you to enter a mathematical statement to see if it is true or not { http://www.wolframalpha.com...} If you enter the statement 0.9... = 1, it confirms my point, it says the statement is true. The flaw in my opponents argument: My opponent has introduced the idea of hyperreal numbers in order to justify the existence of infinitely small numbers. Con has failed to make an important distinction though; he has has mixed up the difference between infinite numbers, and infinite SEQUENCES. Infinite numbers break the rules of regular mathematics (infinity + 1 = infinity?) so mathematicians invented a new form of math (hyperreal number systems) to deal with infinitely large and infinitely small numbers. HOWEVER, AN INFINITE SEQUENCE (such as 0.999...) is not an infinite number, and can be treated with the same laws of regular mathematics (1). You don't need a PhD in mathematics to know that 1/3 = 0.333... Ergo, my previous simple mathematical proofs still hold. In fact, there are many theoretical mathematical models that exist only to explore impossible area's of math, such as "imaginary numbers" For the sake of fairness however, there are more advanced methods of proving that 0.999... = 1, these methods employ the use of geometric sequencing and take into account infinities. (2) Heck, this subject has it's own Wikipedia page.(3) There are many was to write the number 1 (3/3, 0.5 *2, Cos 0 degrees) I maintain that 0.999... is just another way of doing just that. I reassert my original point, if there is no difference between two numbers, they are in fact the same number. 0.9999999 with 50 pages of 9's to follow does not equal one. At any time, if the sequence of .9's is stopped, the number is no longer equal to 1. However, if the 9's go on FOREVER there can be no difference. You cannot fit a number between 5 and 5, you cannot fit a number between 2 and 2, and you cannot fit a number between 0.999.... and 1. If you subtract 0.999... from 1, you will get 0.000.. There is never any 0.0000.....0001 at the end, because THERE IS NO END. In conclusion, if two numbers x and y have no difference, can be changed into one and other using algebra, and can be shown to be equal using simple arithmetic, they are indeed the same number. That is the case for 1 and 0.999... and that is why I assert they are equal, mathematically and literally. For those of you who remain unconvinced, I implore you, spend 2 minutes of your time, do a quick Google search, and find out for yourself. This is truly a fascinating topic, and I'm glad to be debating it. It's a case where simple math disagree's with intuition. Thank you Con for giving me a good fight. References: (1) - http://www.xamuel.com... (2) - http://www.jstor.org... (3) - http://en.wikipedia.org......
0.9999 (repeating) = 1

Ultimately 0.999... is what could be termed a "hyperreal number." The difference between it and 1 will be an infinitesimal, or 0.000...1. Hyperreal numbers are defined with infinite values (such as a 9 repeating) while infinitesimals are their contrasting opposites, between them and a whole number, and extremely small. They are paired as equivalently as antonyms and synonyms. Just as you must use the concept of infinity when expressing the number 0.999 with the nine infinitely repeating, so you must use the concept of infinity when expressing the difference between it and 1 of 0.000...1 with the zeroes infinitely repeating before a 1 at the end.http://en.wikipedia.org...;https://www.princeton.edu...http://www.math.harvard.edu...; Encyclopaedia Britannica defines an infinitesimal as "in mathematics, a quantity less than any finite quantity yet not zero... no such quantity can exist in the real number system. http://dictionary.reference.com...;Calculus in essence is the application of non-standard analysis to address these infinitesimals and hyperreal numbers by representing them with epsilon-delta procedures, or functions that represent the infinitely small amount.http://en.wikipedia.org...;Pro argues that infinitesimals break the Archimedean property, but this is only because the number they themselves are arguing, 0.999..., is itself a non-Archimedean number or hyperreal number. http://en.wikipedia.org...;In essence, Pro is producing a hyperreal number to be subtracted from a real number, and saying it should produce a real number. But the inverse of a hyperreal number will be an infinitesimal, the corresponding opposite of an infinitely large number is an infinitely small one. You cannot in essence produce an infinitely large hyperreal number, and argue the infinitely small number between it and a real number does not exist. If "infinitely large" can exist, then so too can "infinitely small." As noted by professor Thomas J. Crow of Blue Ridge Community College, "Sequences can converge to numbers other than zero. For example, the hyperreal number x=(n/n+1)=(1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5...) is sequence that converges to 1. Consequently x=(n/n+1) is a finite hyperreal number that's infinitely close to 1."http://academic.brcc.edu...;Pro is trying to apply standard analysis, in essence, to non-standard numbers. They want to produce a hypothetical number that is infinitely close to 1 without being 1, and then claim the infinitely small difference that would exist between it and 1 cannot exist, and that the hypothetical number would be the same as 1. Yet the entire field of calculus exists to address and quantify such problems.
0.9999 (repeating) = 1

This is an inherently counter-intuitive subject. When first confronted with the statement 0.999... = 1 our brain immediately rejects this statement. Almost everyone who first see's this will fall back on the argument that there must be an infinitely small difference between the two numbers. We do this, because our minds have a hard time perceiving infinity. My opponent has attacked the logical side of this argument., however the mathematical evidence remains uncontested. A sharp move on his part, because the math is in my favor. I could easily reference 10 more sites where mathematicians demonstrate various proofs, however I will move on to the logical side of this argument. If two numbers are different, there must be an average between the two numbers that is not the same. For instance 3 and 5 have an average of 4. So tell me, what is the average between 0.999... and 1? On to refuting my opponent: When I stated that 1 - 0.999... = 0.000... my opponent said: -"Even if infinite zeroes are involved, there must also be a 1 involved after the infinite zeroes, or 0.9999 with infinite 9s would equate to 1. They are not the same number, therefore there must be a 1 involved as well as infinite zeroes." So you are saying that because they cannot possibly equal each other that there must be a 1 after the infinite series? First of all, you cannot put a digit after an infinite series. That violates the very definitions of infinity. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a professor of mathematics (http://mathforum.org...) That would be like saying infinity plus one. There is simply no such thing. There is no "after" infinity. -"Furthermore, even if we may not be able to measure the difference now, does not mean it does not exist." " As newer more exacting systems of measurement are produced we can better determine smaller and smaller discrepancies." You are thinking in finite terms here. We are not inventing microscopes to find smaller and smaller numbers. While this logic may apply to physics it has nothing to do with math. -"If an infinite number of 0.9999 can exist, then an infinitely small difference can exist as well." An excellent point. My opponent brings up infinitely small numbers. However this brakes whats called The Archimedean property. This principal states that, for any positive real number, r, we can choose a natural number, N, large enough so that their product is greater than 1. In other words, in order for a number to be real, it can be multiplied by a large enough number that the product of those two numbers is greater than 1. Unfortunately, 0.000000... would not fit into this category. Therefore the difference between 1 and 0.999... cannot be defined as real. (http://tme.coe.uga.edu...) In conclusion: If you cannot find a difference between two numbers, and you cannot find an average between them, they are the same number.
0.9999 (repeating) = 1

For all intents and purposes they might be in practicality, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that they are different, regardless of the amount by which they differ. 0.9999, regardless of the 9s, involved, will never be 1, they are separate numbers. We may round up to 1, but our practices do not define reality. We may do this in speech even for far lesser distinctions simply for the purpose of simplicity, but that does not mean they are the same. They are not. OPPONENT ARGUMENTS"That being said, if you subtract (finding the difference) 0.999. .. from 1 you will get 0.000. .. (repeating for infinity). In other words, there is no difference. Therefore 1 and 0.999. . are the same thing. "Even if infinite zeroes are involved, there must also be a 1 involved after the infinite zeroes, or 0.9999 with infinite 9s would equate to 1. They are not the same number, therefore there must be a 1 involved as well as infinite zeroes. Under such a model of what in essence is "infinity minus something" you imply that there is something past infinity, a number following the infinite number. Furthermore, all those infinite 9s will still never result in a 1.0, however "infinitely small" the difference may be. And there will still be a difference however infinitely small. Furthermore, even if we may not be able to measure the difference now, does not mean it does not exist. For example, there has been progression in thought over time as to what the smallest particle is. As newer more exacting systems of measurement are produced we can better determine smaller and smaller discrepancies. If for example we discover a new, smaller particle to exist, does that mean it did not exist in the past because we weren't aware of it? No, it existed, we simply lacked the ability to measure it at the time. Likewise, our difficulty in measuring a minute fraction does not mean said fraction does not exist. "IN ORDER FOR TWO NUMBERS TO BE DIFFERENT, THERE HAS TO BE A NUMBER BETWEEN THEM. If 0.999. .. and 1 where different numbers then there would exist a number between them. No such number exists. This is because you cannot put a digit at the end of an infinite sequence. "There is a number between them, and that number is 1 minus 0.9999 with the nines infinitely repeating. The number by which they differ is only difficult to define because the number in question (0.999 with the nines infinitely repeating) is difficult to define. Ultimately you cannot argue a difference does not exist without arguing that an infinite number does not exist, for the logic is the same. And if an infinite number cannot exist, then there is no question to be discussed, is there? If an infinite number of 0.9999 can exist, then an infinitely small difference can exist as well.