BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals should be tested on

I would like to ask my opponent to please use proper citation so I can verify his source, not just copy and paste the same. My opponent did not rebut my arguments that (1) Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments, and (2) Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. (these two arguments have already been proven above and is not dependent on the third argument) He focused only in (3) Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. He said, “animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings and… Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe.” I did not say that animal tests are 100% reliable and accurate, what I have just said is that there are no better alternatives that can produce more effective results. Moreover, the alternatives you stated are not proven to be effective compared to animal testing. In fact, According to the US-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, 'animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.'1 Similarly, here are other benefits of animal testing: Smallpox (cow): The vaccinia vaccine against smallpox was derived from the cowpox virus used by Edward Jenner following his observation that farm workers who contracted cowpox were protected against smallpox - It has now been eradicated from earth. Polio has been eradicated from North America and people in countries all over the world are being successfully treated (mouse and monkey). Insulin is now able to help control diabetes (dog, fish). There are vaccines for tetanus (horse), rubella (monkey), anthrax (sheep), and rabies (dog, rabbit). Animal testing has also led to advances in our knowledge that may help us develop additional cures, including an understanding of the Malaria lifecycle (pigeon), tuberculosis (cow, sheep), Typhus (guinea pig, rat, mouse), and the function of neurons (cat, dog). Vivisection was also crucial in the discovery of anti-blood-clotting drugs for the treatment of haemophilia (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgery and cardiac pacemakers (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig), laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment (monkey). Lastly, he said, “Animals can suffer like humans.” I have already rebutted this. Animals do suffer but their suffering is justified because the benefits outweigh the cost. Source: 1 http://www.pro-test.org.uk...
Animals should be tested on

Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [57] According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. [58] A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [59, 58] A 2013 study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety." [60] ---------Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. [5] Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [109, 110] Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [55, 56] Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66, 67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" [66]
Animals should be tested on

Animals should not be tested on. Did you know: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." [35] Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." [47] The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48, 49] The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. [65, 102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. [26] In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15, 50, 51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

Da Vinci made some inventions, yes. Without those inventions we would be severely behind technilogically, I know that. But inventing stuff doesn't make him a great artist. The Mona Lisa and The Last Supper didn't do anything for the world either. They're paintings. I know a lot of people see Da Vinci as an influential artist, and I agree. But I don't think he is the best artist of all-time. Leonardo Da Vinci made art a loooooong time ago. Back when art was realistic images, that were, I hate to say it, easy to interpret. Nowadays, art is multi-interpretable I could go to a modern art gallery and find a more creative artist than Leonardo Da Vinci. Someone who can look at anything -Literally anything- and see an art in it. They can take their art and put it on a canvas, it doesn't matter what it is. Da Vinci and all the other people in the renaissance used their form of art, it was the latest thing. And fyi, Mona Lisa not having eybrows wasn't an artistic choice, and it doesn't represent anything. Women shaving eyebrows was a fashion during the renassance, so Lisa Gherardini didn't have any.
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

If you can use popularity as a sign of quality, then Justin Beiber is today's mozart. All the arguements you used can be used for other forms of art. "Star wars is the most well-known, most seen, and (easily) most parodied film. Thus, it's the greatest film of all time and George Lucas is the best director ever." It isn't and he's not. but you get my point.And oh my goodness, here you go again. Look, I accepted hoping for a sophisticated debate. Is it so much to ask that you actually argue your opinion instead of state facts?! Unless this is always how you argue.Person: "The Godfather was ok."you: "Actually, The Godfather was directed by Francis Ford Coppela and was reviewed by multiple critics. It was shown in multiple movie theaters and stars Marlon Brando."(Note: I actually love the godfather it's just an example.)The point of debating is to state your own opinion, not to state facts you read. This furthers my other point, that Da Vinci was uncreative. Fans of Da Vinci will go only to cold hard facts and won't try to express themselves, while fans of Van Gogh and Picasso will fully state their opinion and argue for it. Coincidence? I think not.
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

The Mona Lisa (La Gioconda or La Joconde) is a half-length portrait of a woman by the Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci, which has been acclaimed as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world." The painting, thought to be a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, is in oil on a poplar panel, and is believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506. It was acquired by King Francis I of France and is now the property of the French Republic, on permanent display at the Mus"e du Louvre in Paris since 1797. The ambiguity of the subject's expression, which is frequently described as enigmatic, the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modeling of forms and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

While the Mona Lisa is incredibly unique and very much talked about, it's the only one that gets my attention. Every other renaissance painter was making religious paintings, most of them as good if not better than the last supper & virgin of the rocks. And although an attention to detail is important, it shows signs of uncreativity. Artists like Pablo Picasso and Van Gogh weren't bound by these rules, the just created. The didn't need to fixate on every detail, they didn't need to make it look real. They're better painters than Da Vinci because they didn't need to make everything look real, their paintings were amazing anyway! Picasso didn't look at the real world for inspirartion, he just took a brush and painted. And also, just because he payed attention to detail doesn't make him a better painter overall. It makes him better at detailing. That's not what art should be about, it should be about thinking outside the box, creating new worlds, new imagery, new ways of looking at life. Da Vinci could only see the world through everyone elses eyes, but Van Gogh saw the world in his own eyes.
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

Despite the recent awareness and admiration of Leonardo as a scientist and inventor, for the better part of four hundred years his fame rested on his achievements as a painter and on a handful of works, either authenticated or attributed to him that have been regarded as among the masterpieces. These paintings are famous for a variety of qualities which have been much imitated by students and discussed at great length by connoisseurs and critics. Among the qualities that make Leonardo's work unique are the innovative techniques that he used in laying on the paint, his detailed knowledge of anatomy, light, botany and geology, his interest in physiognomy and the way in which humans register emotion in expression and gesture, his innovative use of the human form in figurative composition, and his use of the subtle gradation of tone. All these qualities come together in his most famous painted works, the Mona Lisa, the Last Supper and the Virgin of the Rocks.
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

... Why? Why so much background information? The fact that he was Italian is very well-known, but doesn't serve this debate. His family history, early life, and really anything that has nothing to do with the art itself doesn't matter. You're just showing me a short biography of Da Vinci and using that as an argument, but that's not an argument. This kind of stuff doesn't matter for any other artist. The fact that Van Gogh cut his ear off isn't what makes "Starry Night" a great painting. You even go so far as to point out he was vegetarian. Why? That doesn't matter, we're not discussing... I don't even know where that information would be of use.Your logic makes no sense, someone having an interesting life doesn't make them a great artist.
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

A short biography: Leonardo da Vinci was regarded as an astonishing virtuoso, even by his contemporaries of the time. Born in 1452 he was at work long before Michelangelo and Raphael who are considered to be the two other great masters of High Renaissance Art. Little is known about his early life, da Vinci simply means, of the town of Vinci, a town in the territory of Florence. He was actually born at Anchiano, a village close to Vinci, the son of Ser Piero and a peasant girl Caterina. The legend of Leonardo's physical beauty has been chronicled by Vasari, and since there is no description or portrait of him, we assume that Vasari's writings are based on fact. His schooling was basic and followed the traditional educational teachings of the time. This lack of higher education was apparent in his struggle to understand Latin. Many classical documents were written in Latin, and it was with a source frustration that he had to resort to reading translations of scientific subjects rather than the original papers. Leonardo was a vegetarian who loved animals and by 1469 he was living with his father on the Piaszza San Firenze in Florence. His early apprentership began at the age of fourteen, in the workshop of painter and sculptor Verrocchio. Verrocchio was one of the most renowned artists of his day and other painters with conections to his workshop include Botticelli and Ghirlandaio, however Leonardo Da Vinci is the artist who is mostly associated with Verrocchio. Source/s: http://www.italian-renaissance-art.com...
Leonardo Da Vinci was the best artist in the history.

Da Vinci was great, no, amazing. One of the greatest artists of all-time. But I wouldn't say hes the best. Artist means creator of art, so that means all art. Directors, painters, sculpters, inventors, composers, choreographers. These are all aritists in their respective field.To say he's the best painter of all-time is far-fetched enough. His paintings are great, but they're too real-looking. I know it might be off-putting to say a painting looking real would mean less creative skill, but just think about it. The fact that you can't create an image you have to base it on something in the world is less creative than Van Gogh's art. I can accept he's the best inventor just short of the guy who created Reese's, but I won't accept best painter and thus I won't accept best artist.
There is no difference between abortion and and gun murder.

My opponent claims only 5% of the time a mother's life is in danger. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. The fact that this reasoning is here, no matter how tiny the occurrence is, negates the resolution. There is a clear difference in intent when one is to save, and the other to harm. The rest of your post is an argument for why abortion is immoral, not how it is the same as gun murder, nor a rebuttal of the rest of my arguments presented last round. As such, it should be dismissed by the voters. To humour you however, I respond with this; those death numbers are justifiable, in that the death is caused by self-defence. Should you like to debate the morality of abortion, I would be more than happy to. But that is not what the resolution is about, and as such, is irrelevant to this debate.
There is no difference between abortion and and gun murder.

Thank you for excepting this debate. When you stated that in some circumstances the mothers life is in danger, the percentage is about 5% of the time that happens. Majority of the mothers are either to lazy or ignorant. they cant even send the HUMAN BEING i to and orphanage. You my fellow american and fellow human can look down upon the child and be OK with abortion. But in all reality you should just be glad that your own parents chose you. 45,000,000 innocent HUMAN BEINGS are being killed a year. The mass of murder and blood is insane. Now let me appeal to ypu better nature take a mental picture of a child who has been born and the mother wants and abortion that young HUMAN BEING could have grown up to e an amazing person. 45,000,000 little children, at least 100,000 of those children could have presented something amazing and helpful toward our economy. Now think of the ways that the children die....some are broken into pieces, some are poisoned are some are suffocated, and some are left to die. Not tell me how is this OK?
There is no difference between abortion and and gun murder.

There are a plethora of differences between gun murder and abortion.Let's start with the physical. The method by which gun crimes and abortion occur are entirely different. Gun murder would, as one would imagine, involve one or several bullet wounds, which cause the individual to experience an array of physical defects, that eventually cause them to die. Death from gunfire can be the result of bleeding out from a wound, the loss of critical organs such as the brain, heart, or lungs, seizure from shock, ect.Abortion, on the other hand, involves different procedures and methods of death. Medical abortions are carried out by a woman ingesting certain pills, which cause the body to react in a way similar to a miscarriage. Surgical abortions occur by using a vacuum to suck out the fetus and related material. So we can easily see right off the bat, there is a difference in the method by which the related party dies.But let us also consider the philosophical differences as well.Gun murder, as the name implies, is a crime wherein there is an intent to maim and kill someone in an antagonistic way. It is an act of aggression. The intent is to harm an otherwise innocent party, because you want to.Abortion, by contrast, is primarily an act of self-defence. Abortions are done because the mother does not want the fetus inside of her, living in her. In this case, it is done to preserve her bodily sovereignty. Abortions also occur when the mother's life is in danger. In this case, it is done to, literally, save and preserve the mother's life.So it is plainly obvious that, in addition to physical differences between the two, there is a distinct philosophical difference between the two, based on the intent and reasoning used to perform the acts, which conversely creates a divergence in the morality of the two. A clear cut difference.Thus, the two are different.
Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime

In this debate, I will argue that allowing (shall issue laws, for example) CCW will decrease violent crime in the United States. My opponent, as CON, will be arguing against this proposition, that CCW laws have no effect, or increase, violent crime rates. Definitions:Concealed Carry: concealed carry weapon, a practice in which a person carries a weapon, generally a firearm, hidden on their person. This generally (except in states, such as Alaska and Arizona) requires a license. Shall issue: A 'shall' issue law is a variant of law related to the legality of CCW practice. This means if you apply for a license, and meet the criteria (including, but not limited to, 21 and over in age, no criminal record), you will obtain the license. The authority will not exert discretion to awarding the licenses. May issue: Similar to shall issue, except that the authorities exert discretion on who obtains the licenses. In shall issue, the WILL give the permit if you meet the criteria, and as the name implies, they MAY give the license, the sheriffs department, for example, can deny certain applicants which pass the preliminary tests. No issue: CCW is banned, and only rarely will grant CCW permits. My opponent will be, essentially, arguing that lenient laws (shall issue and may issue) either do not effect crime, or increase the crime rate. I will argue that lenient laws will decrease violent crime.First round is for acceptance http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homework should be banned

"Don't you think that it is unfair that after students have a tired journal that started early and takes approximately 7-8 hours, then make them work more at home? I guess no, 7-8 hours of learning is enough."Well, first of all, the average school hours is 6, including breaktime, lunch and assembly/form. That amounts to about 4 and a half hours of actual learning/lessons... Depending on the school, of course. Many private schools have extremely long days (7-9 hours) but do not set homework. That's the alternative, and I think we can both agree we'd rather get work done at home than have 3 extra hours of school.. Secondly, yes, I think people should continue to work at home. It reinforces your education and prepares you for tests."Don't you think that is slavery?"No, and I think that you've discredited yourself by comparing doing HOMEWORK to one of the most degrading and horrible events in history."Even if there is a few amount of homework, students are being forced to a cruel punishment."Homework is not a punishment, it's an advancement for learning. A punishment is given to someone who has done something wrong."What happens if the homework is very hard for students?"Then you return to the teacher and explain that you do not understand the subject and need extra help. You're not going to get excluded for finding something hard. "Don't you think that school projects can help?"Yes. But that's homework. You're suggesting we ban homework then using homework as an alternative. "Maybe their parents or Google don't give them the correct assistance."Like I said, they go to the teacher. "If kids arrive at 7pm at home."Jesus Christ, where are these kids going to school? Auswitz?! "What is the point of having homework if many kids don't do it?"What's the point of telling the truth if many people don't do it? What's the point of peeing with the seat up when many people don't do it?You can't discredit something just because a fraction of people don't do it. The majority of kids do homework, so this is a mute point. "Don't you think that it is unfair for them to check exams, plan what to do the next day, and then check or grade homework?"That's their job which they are being paid for. Whether or not they're being paid enough is a different matter.In conclusion, I believe that the instigator is biased against homework due to the simple fact that they're a teenager who has to do it. They have ignored the fact that homework has been proven to improve test results, and although I agree that homework needs to be reduced, banning it completely is wishful thinking from someone who refuses to acknowledge the benefits.Au revoir.