BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Rights

I believe this is also a matter of compassion. Yes, it is not all labs that torture and kill the animals but some do. As long the animals are tortured and killed in labs it is legal but as soon as it happens outside the doors of the lab it is a felony. I can not help but wonder. The suffering does not always happen in labs but also the fur farms. The conditions are terrible and the animals suffer greatly. 10% of the worlds fur farming are from the U.S. The most commonly fur-bearing animals are minks. The mink farmers usually breed female minks once a year. Averagely 3-4 kittens survive in each litter and are killed about 6 months later. Minks used for breeding get to live about 4-5 years. These animals live in unbearably small cages. They know nothing but fear, stress, disease, parasites and several other physical and psychological sufferings. The minks have been found to cannibalize their cage mates because of the lack of space.The fur farmers only care about to preserve the quality of the fur. This leads to terrible methods just to keep the pelt intact without any concern of the pain the animal is in. Small animals are usually put into small boxes and poisoned by unfiltered engine exhaust. Engine exhaust is not always lethal so it is possible that the animal wakes up as it is skinned. I could go on and describe the unimaginably pain these animals suffer. Is this a life worth living. There are methods that does not include the testing of animals. Some scientists are still developing effective non-animal researching 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.
Animal Rights

First of all I just want to say that animal testing is a good thing to the world and humanity. The point with testing cosmetics, medicin and other forms of products on animals is because - as you said - that animals are closely related and very much the same as us humans. If people didn't test the products on animals before they put it out on the market, we would not know if the product could kill us or harm us in anyway. Animal testing is making sure the products are safe for us humans to use. "How come we allow these creatures to be tortured and killed?" The fact is that in all (legal) labs, the animals are not treated badly. The scientists makes sure that the animals gets food, water, gets to play and doesn't only sit in a cage all day, everyday. They even make sure that the animals gets to go out for a walk (for example dogs) and they are generally treated very well. The lab is not a bad place for animals to be, they do not suffer or get treated badly. "Some of the medications do not even work in the end. The animals died for nothing at all" No, that is exactly the point with animal testing. The medicin did NOT work. Would you rather want it to be thousands of human beings that died, because the medicin they were supposed to be treated with did not work, or one animal that died? The animals did not die for nothing at all, they died for hundreds or maybe thousands of humans.
Animal Rights

Estimated 26 million animals are used for commercial and scientific testing every year in the U.S. Used to determine the toxicity of medication and to develop medical treatments, that is destined for human use. How come we allow these creatures to be tortured and killed? People might think it is a necessary evil to improve the survival of the human race. They might be right too but researches have figured out that animals are a lot more like us. The animals have feelings just like us. They can feel the same pain as we can and I find it is hard to understand why people fail to see that. It has been proven that pigs can feel pain, affection, excitement, experience stress and even feel love. They can get depressed very easily if they are denied to interact with each other or isolated. How is that different from us? Won't we feel depressed if we don't interact with other people? Yes, these tests on animals have saved human lives but for what costs? Millions upon millions of animals that are caged and tortured their entire life. Some of these medications do not even work in the end. The animals died for nothing at all. I can't help but think what if human beings were caged and tortured for experiments?
New York's Restriction on Sugary Drinks

Okay. This last round will only take a second. I'll just refute his last two claims. This was a short debate so I won't bother doing a flow or weigh.1. Lack of knowledgeI suggested warning labels as an alternative. They increase knowledge for people who are uneducated on the subject.2. Tax is badOkay. Let's look at what is happening here closely with my tax argument. John Mill says that you cannot go against the will of the citizen unless it harms others. Soda drinking only harms others in terms of obesity health care. Taxes cover obesity health care. Everybody wins!
New York's Restriction on Sugary Drinks

Final Rebuttals 1. The Harm Principle which John Mill articulated, and which my opponent refers to "holds that limiting liberty can only be justified to prevent harm to other people, not to prevent self-harm. More precisely, coercion can only be justified to prevent harm to unconsenting others, not to prevent harm to which the actors competently consent"..."But the harm principle does not bar all paternalism. It permits paternalism over the incompetent, such as young children, the retarded, and perhaps those whose ability to make decisions is compromised by ignorance, deception, duress, or clouded faculties." [7] The lack of information and education on the damaging nature of sugary drinks known to the general population puts us in the ignorant category if only temporarily. This allows us to create a law that protects us from our own ignorance. Furthermore I contend that drinking sugary drinks do cause harm to others by way of obesity and it's related side effects. Clearly supporting that liberty can be limited in order to prevent harm to unconsenting others. 2. My opponent proposes a tax in order to limit the harm caused by those consuming said sugary drinks. However the tax puts a financial burden on all people. The point isn't whether or not a consumer will willingly choose to pay the tax or not, it's whether a tax creates a financial burden to the consumer which it does, thus causing harm to others and allowing the law to exist even under John Mill's own standards. [7] http://legacy.earlham.edu...
New York's Restriction on Sugary Drinks

I don't mind the late post. Weekends can be hectic. I will devote this round to re-inforcing my rebuttals, and refuting his follow up arguments.Counter-Counter Refutations1. Legal basis for the law.I again harken to my John Stuart Mill (British philosopher) quote. "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...." There is no legal basis for the law, because drinking soda does not harm other people. My opponent skirts around this refutation. I am a bit confused by the whole seatbelt thing, I'm sorry. It seems to me like you are comparing seat belts to the sugary drinks restrictions, in that they don't work and have bad side effects.2. Health care costs.I have already said that we can make a small tax to pay for health care, and you say that this will extend the burden to occasional sugary drink consumers. It seems to me that if a occasional soda consumer is confronted with the option of paying a small tax and not being able to purchase the product at the deli they are at, they will choose paying a small tax.As to warning labels, my opponent's source only says that sometimes they are not super effective, it doesn't say anyting about being more timely or costly. Any time and cost is worth it because we will be saving lives without going against anybody's free will. It doesn't inconvenience anyone to see a printed warning on the side of their soda. Follow-up Refutations1. Prostitution lawsGo back and read the John Stuart Mill quote. If something doesn't harm other people, then it should be allowed. Prostitution causes harm to people other than those involved in the transaction. It creates a violent underground black market business, and it transmits STDs very fast.2. Doesn't violate freedom of choiceIt completely does violate freedom of choice. If I choose to buy my product at this small business deli, why should I have to walk a ten blocks to go to the nearest Duane Reade?3. The less the consumer drinks the more businesses save.This is completely false. First of all, big drinks cost more than little drinks. Second of all, even if the consumer only drinks half of it, they are still paying the full amount of it. Deli owners don't care how much people throw out their soda, as long as it gets soldVote for con.
New York's Restriction on Sugary Drinks

I apologize for the late post. I'm sure you know how the weekend can be: Onto the Good Stuff Counter Rebuttal: 1. As my previous source demonstrates [3] sugary drinks are a contributor to Obesity. There is no doubt about the link between the two. My opponent states "Drinking soda leads to nothing, unless you drink too much of it." There in lies the problem, people are drinking too much of it. This law serves to keep people from doing that. When congress decided to establish The National Highway Traffic Safety administration it marked a "historic shift in responsibility of automobile safety from the consumer to government" [5]. When Ralph Nader was pushing for seat belts to be mandatory there was an outcry from automobile makers, even leading some businesses to try and discredit him. [5] The cost and research needing to install seat belts was a big point in the fight to stave off the seat belt law. There is also a side effect of wearing seat belts; Risk compensation is when someone feels safer, so they are willing to take bigger risks. In an a Time Article, it was noted that "mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths." [6] The article demonstrates that there are side effects to wearing a seat belt 2. The proposed tax extends the burden to occasional sugary drink consumers. The law limits the burden to those who are heavy sugary drink consumers. The $147 billion dollar figure is cited from an National Health care Expenditure Data set and can be seen through the link provided in the previous round. Limiting sugary drink consumption can successfully lower this limit on a national level As my opponent noted The law was struck down because "the way it was passed was unconstitutional" Not because it would not have any affect on obesity. The merits of the law are being debated, not the way the law was passed, or was attempted to pass. 3. We both agree that warning labels and education can help curb the consumption of sodas, but it does so in an untimely and way more expensive manner than would the sugary drink law. I'm stating that the law provides a more efficient and less costly way to start fighting the obesity fight in which sugary drinks are a major contributor to. FOLLOW UP ARGUMENTS 1) Another set of laws that serve to protect people from themselves, are prostitution laws. Prostitution laws help protect the general population from the spread of STD's as well as from a moral standpoint. 2) Freedom of choice is not limited by this law. People are free to order re-fills, go to a non food service establishment or elsewhere to get their gallon of soda. This law just helps people with their portions. 3) This law can also help small businesses save money otherwise lost on wasted soda. If a person orders a 20oz drink and only drinks 10oz, the business loses 10oz to waste. If a person orders a 6oz drink and only drinks 10oz, there is only a loss of 6oz. This will help businesses save money on drink costs alone. Another great benefit for small businesses. [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]: http://www.time.com...
New York's Restriction on Sugary Drinks

My contentions: 1. This ban will affect small businesseses According to James Brandt of Latham and Watkins attorneys, quote, “It’s not going to stop anybody from drinking soda, it’s going to push people from the Sabrett guy to the Duane Reade or the 7-11.” end-quote. This law bans sodas from “Food service establishments”, such as restaurants, delis, and stadiums. However, this law excludes grocery stores and 7-11’s. This ban will stop people from buying their soda at small delis or restaurants and send them to grocery stores and 7-11s, which are apparently not food service establishments. One of the most popular 16 oz. drink is the Big Gulp, sold exclusively at 7-11s. Judge, this ban, while aiming to stop people from drinking big sodas, will just push them all to big businesses instead of small delis and restaurants. 2. This act is a direct violation of freedom of choice. The government doesn’t have the right to choose our diet. America isn’t a totalitarian dictatorship where the government gets to decide what we eat or drink. Because of freedom of choice, the government can’t restrict our portions. What comes next? Restricting how many slices of cake you can eat? This law is just part of a string of “food nanny” laws Bloomberg has passed (cbslocal). The only reason he got this law and others, such as the restriction of regular sized candy for trick or treating, and the banning of salty foods given to homeless shelters, the only reason he got these laws passed is that he runs them over a board of health that he has chosen himself in office (nycgov)! A majority of New Yorkers are opposed to the ban (abcnews) 3. Warning labels are a much better alternative In 2003, when the government saw that cigarette sales had surged, their response wasn’t to ban cigarettes, or somehow restrict how many cigarettes are in one pack, because they knew that people who are really addicted would just buy two packs. Warning labels are extremely effective, too (sciencedaily, tobaccocontrol), and they would be a great alternative for sodas. According to tobacco control, warning labels made smokers with a gap in knowledge on the detrimental effects of smoking more aware of the harm smoking can do. Many advocacy groups are trying to get warning labels put on sodas to warn consumers(cbsnews). Judging by the fact that warning labels are so effective on cigarettes, we can ascertain that putting these labels on sodas would provide all the benefits of the 16 oz. soda bans, without any of the doubts. Educate don't regulate!
Ghosts Probably Exist

Thanks Pro. Pro brings up stories of ghosts in ancient times. It’s quite interesting, but it responds to nothing. My argument from experience already refutes it. Meaning his argument from experience is still refuted. Pro dropped his argument from TV, meaning that argument is still refuted. He also never responded to my argu.ment from interaction against ghosts, so that argument succeeds. Pro does offer a new argument from psychics However, the argument fails. Psychics First, because all Pro can show is that a medium somehow knew information. He has not demonstrated that ghosts are the cause, all he did was cite an effect. I can hear Hume rolling over in his grave. Secondly, even if I did accept the cause being a legitimate dead person, this doesn’t mean they are ghosts. They could be still exist in an afterlife, not here. Third, Magicians and Mentalists such as I have many tactics to “talk to the dead” without actually talking to anyone but the living. It’s called the cold reading [1]. With practice, anyone can fool someone into thinking they’re psychic. Lastly, the people who go to these mediums are subject to confirmation bias. The person receiving the reading will forget the wrong information and remember the correct information [2]. Pro brings up a psychic predicting JFK’s assassination. This is partially true, but not the whole truth. Jeane Dixon never stating “JFK will be assassinated” she just said “"As for the 1960 election Mrs. Dixon thinks it will be dominated by labor and won by a Democrat. But he will be assassinated or die in office 'though not necessarily in his first term.” [3] Nothing about JFK. Ironically Dixon predicted JFK would lose the election [4]. Dixon also made numerous false predictions [5] like the Soviets getting to the moon first and world war three starting. This caused John Allen Paulos to coin the term “The Jeane Dixon effect” [6] which “references a tendency to promote a few correct predictions while ignoring a larger number of incorrect predictions”. Pro then cites Calphurnia dream. However, this is from Shakespeare's play “Julius Caesar” [7]. The play is based on true events, but I could find no evidence supporting the claim that Calphurnia’s dream was real. Conclusion My arguments and rebuttals are uncontested. Pro drops arguments and adds arguments that are irrelevant to the debate. The resolution is negated, I have demonstrated that Ghosts are improbable while Pro has not fulfilled his BOP. Remember Pro, since you went first, in the next round you must only post "For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed." Thanks [1] http://rationalwiki.org... [2] http://www.futurescopes.com... [3] http://www.straightdope.com... [4] Ibid. [5] http://skepdic.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.shmoop.com...
Ghosts Probably Exist

There have been many accounts of paranormal activity, some from as far back as the 15th centuries! http://ancienthistory.about.com... This website shows that ancient people, some of them famous, have had reports of supernatural experiences. Including Gilgamesh, the ancient Greek hero, and Homer, writer of the Odyssey. These accounts prove that there are some spooky stuff going on in the world, even in ancient times! Clairvoyant and Mediums There are many people who claim to be able to talk and listen to people who have passed on to the next life, some of them even have heir own TV show!http://www.tlc.com... These people have something known as "the sixth sense" or ESP. This ability also lets people predict certain happenings, like when a medium Predicted that Robert Kennedy died on that day, even though it was hours before! Heck, some ancient people apparently had it, as, before his death, Julius Caesar's wife warned him not to go to the meeting that led to his death, because of a dream of a statue of him dripping with blood. Of course, he didn't follow her, and that led to the day of his death, stabbed by the governors at the meeting who were feeling he had too much power. Enough proof to say that ghosts exist? I would say, you had some pretty good arguments, this is going to be a tough debate.
Ghosts Probably Exist

In Wikipedia, it states that the ghost is, "the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear, in visible form or other manifestation, to the living." http://en.wikipedia.org... So, when someone dies, what will happen to them? Will their body just lay there, and the person who lived in that body just disappeared, they just vanish from existence? Or, do their spirits leave their bodies, either rising up to heaven ( im not crazy about the Bible, but maybe..), or they just roam about, either where they rest now, where they died, or a place they loved when they were alive. I think that spirits do exist. As you know, there are many TV shows about the subject, my favorite being Ghost Adventures. Why do they exist? Because ghosts exist! Many skeptics say that these shows are faked, but why would they post fake TV shows on air? http://ezinearticles.com... this report shows a professional Ghost Researcher talking about this subject. In my opinion, ghosts are real, and she thinks so too. Sources: http://crazyhorsesghost.hubpages.com... http://ghostexist.com...
Ghosts Probably Exist

Ghosts: An immaterial apparition of a dead person that is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image: Probability: almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell. Exist: have objective reality or being. BOP (Burden of proof) is shared. I must show that Ghosts are improbable and my opponent must show Ghosts are probable. Debate format: R1: Opening information and Pro's opening arguments R2: My rebuttal and Pro's response R3: My response Since Pro is arguing in round 1, in round 3 Pro will put "For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed." Rules: No forfeits No insults No semantics 72 Hours to Post Argument 10,000 Characters Max 10 Day Voting Period Start your arguments in Round 1
right+intent=morality

the resolution is inherently flawed. right =/= right. There is no right, what we know is right is always open to change .We may think the sun is bright, but that could change. Nothing is iron clan facts, as facts can always change with more observations and evidence so we know as right now is actually subjective. Morality is not right because it's based on choices which no choice is ever a right choice The entire debate is right + intent = morality. You have to show how that formula is true not to mention you cant add words well maybe but not in that sense https://www.google.com...
right+intent=morality

as you say, right is based on the principal of being objective which is inherently correct. You cannot reason and be objective but subjective which is perception, not being inherently right. Morality cannot be defined as right+ intent because one cannot be right as right is open to change which is defined by ethical and cultural standards / square root and power of Popsicle Jesus can move a stone with his mind, so he is objectively right by perceptions in culture in context to the poison mushroom
right+intent=morality

right by definition is the concept of being true, morality is not true nor can it be right but rather subjective to perception and intent depending on ethical relativity in society which is at best relative to personal opinion. You have to love to feel and to make your ethics, so morality cannot be right but is undeniably defined by choices and ethics which people love or theywould not commit Morality cannot be defined as right + intent because morality is polar opposite from being right becasue right is based on perception and morality cannot be right because it is always subjective Ethics + choices = morality Ill eat your mushroom and spit out unicorn rainbows
Creationism is a viable explanation for the existence of the universe

I too would like to keep this friendly, and as this is my first debate on here, and I am very young and would like to use this to prepare myself for any arguments I may face in my life. On this I will be arguing on the side that creationism is a viable explanation for the existence of the universe. I would also like to point out that creationism does not require the restrictive thought that there are only thousands of years in existence. In fact, evolution can very well be included into the view of creationism. I would like to encourage everyone who reads these arguments to vote after reading all of them, and then if you have changed your perspective to my side to talk to me if you have any questions, I may not be able to answer them all, but I will try. I will attempt to make arguments for all of creationism, however, many of my arguments will be based on Christian beliefs and scripture.