BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause

P1: Another reason for the establishment of the fourth amendment was to protect individuals (civilians) from the government's abuse of authority. In order to prevent the possible abuse of authority ,there was a guideline needed restricting the government or police officials searching an individual without a proper accordance to its regulations that is safe and just for the individual being searched. That is why no individual can be searched unless with a probable cause followed by a official warrant as a proof guaranteeing the individual to be searched that there is a reasonable cause for the search. P2: There have been so many cases that government,police officials have searched individuals without a probable cause or without a warrant, which led to serious offense for individuals. In the case of Nathanson vs. US (1933), it was concluded that a warrant cannot be issued to search a private dwelling with only a mere affirmation of belief or suspicion,but with a probable cause based on facts or circumstances presented to him under oath or affirmation. There needs to be a reasonable basis followed by facts supporting the reason for the search of an individual so that individuals are protected from unfair treatments from officials. C: The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.law.cornell.edu...
The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause

P1: Probable cause is required for making an arrest or conduct a search or warrant. “Having probable cause requires a reasonable basis for believing a crime may have been committed (for arrest) and that evidence of the crime is present in the place to be search (for search)” This requirement is very strict and has lead people who are guilty to walk away without being punished for their actions. P2: In 2009 Marcos Oliver was found to be in full cardiac arrest. Sergeant Kite picked up a phone that was constantly beeping and read “Wat if I got 2 take him 2 da hospital wat do I say and dos marks on his neck omg.” Though Sergeant Kite did not search with probable cause nor had a warrant he found that the boyfriend of Marcos mother was the one who caused his death. The person was not convicted since the search of the text message violated the person’s fourth amendment. This is one of many cases that have not lead to the conviction of a criminal because of the fourth amendment probable cause. P3: Only one in ten searches leads to an arrest. Though it is not a great feeling to have an official search you stuff without probable cause it is best for the safety of society. Conclusion: The US government should substantially increase its authority to search without probable cause.Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu...http://www.dmlp.org...http://www.stop-watch.org...
The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause

P1: According to the fourth amendment of the US constitution it is stated that,"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Which is basically stating that every individual has the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions. Therefore, No individual should have these fundamental rights violated from anyone else including the authority (government) itself without their consent for the government guarantees the protection of these rights to the individual. P2: Unless there is reasonable basis i.e. probable cause, such as a strong indication that there is evidence provided at a certain location for an alleged criminal ,then the search can take place, but of course followed by a warrant issued from the authority (judge or magistrate) permitting the search to be done. There are also exceptions to the search that can take place without a warrant,however, if that is the case it still must be done out of a strong evident basis for the cause. No individual should have to experience an invasion and violation to their rights of freedom and privacy. C: The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu...
The Christian God exists (9)

Honestly I feel that no matter what religion you are or what you believe in, there is only one God. Whether a person believes in Jesus or Lord Ganesh it does not really matter. People say that Hindus pray to so many Gods and there are over 200 forms of God but that is not true. Each Lord or Goddess has the characteristics of the ultimate God. The only reason why there are so many forms is so that we are guided to attain total self realization. Therefore I feel that the Christian god does exist as well as Lord Ganesh.
The Christian God exists (9)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. This debate is not about providing definitive proof either way, but more providing valid evidence that the Christian god exists. I await my opponent's arguments.
Animal Testing

My opponent addresses the adversity behind understanding physiological effects of drugs in vitro testing and how animal testing is used in conjunction to overcome that adversity. However, animal testing used in conjunction with in vitro testing make little gain. The biological systems between human and animal are so different that seeing a physiological effect of a drug in an animal and extrapolating that same effect to a human is preposterous. For example, Vioxx is a drug that was found to be an anti-inflammatory medication through animal studies on mice, rats, and African green monkeys. When humans took this medication, the drug caused cardiac and vascular disease. As many as 60,000 Americans have died from this drug, yet this drug worked just fine in three different animals. How does animal testing justify the use of the drug for humans. In the case of Vioxx, once the drug was approved for use by Americans, the time it was on the market may as well have been a human testing period, despite the fact that human testing is banned. Modeling animal physiological response and comparing it to human physiological response cannot be used effectively enough to warrant safe implementation on drug use through data on animal testing. Continuing with genetics research, despite the fact that there exists a homology between proteins of different species, how does this homology lead to the creation of drugs or treatments for humans that are applicable and effective? My opponent has offered no insight into this arena. Yes, great amounts of research are being conducted, but what positive results in human medicine stemming from this genetic research in animals (specifically what drugs or treatment have been created), has come to fruition? In addition, the acquisition of human DNA is relatively harmless to humans. Therefore, the study of human genetics for the same diseases mentioned by my opponent can be studied with the same rigor. So why use animal data? My opponent again brings up cancer research as an effective argument for animal testing. My opponent again speaks about continuing research in the field using animal testing, specifically with monoclonal antibodies, interferons, interleukins, etc. My opponent also brings up that research in genetic testing and carcinogenicity testing combined with in vitro studies is causing researchers to more closely examine interleukins and adenoviruses. I challenge my opponent to consider how much did animal testing contribute to this desire to more closely examine these topics. Were animal studies or in vitro studies more conclusive. The simple fact that in vitro studies consider use of human cells would indicate that they were likely more effective in the study. Again, my opponent concedes that not all forms of cancer can be replicated in animals. She also states that other cancers are naturally appearing in animals. However, those cancers are not native to humans and cannot be extrapolated to human response.
Animal Testing

Animal testing for the study of human medicine should end by using alternative methods. Animal testing is not necessary because of the shortcomings in the comparison between medical experimentation on animals and related effects on humans. To define the terms of my proposal, animal testing is the experimental use of animals as hosts for drugs or other comparative therapy with that in humans. Alternative methods can be termed as methods for the study of human medicine that do not involve any form of animal testing, such as in vitro studies and epidemiological studies. My opponent discusses how genetic research has been conducted in animals and then discusses how benefits in medicine have been derived from the research. How does genetic research in animals correlate in any manner to that of humans, considering the large variance in human and animal DNA? Genetic research on animals may be useful on the animals themselves, but even from animal to animal the genetics vary far too much to draw any sizable conclusion that medical treatment comparisons can be drawn. Another point my opponent discusses is one concerning cancer research. However, she does not provide any connection between the development of drugs created for cancer and animal testing. Are we to assume that cancer drugs and all research conducted in the field have been the benefactor of animal testing? This inherency is ill conceived. Evidence exists to the contrary. Cancer cannot be replicated in animals. Therefore, how can any formidable cancer drug be formed from animal research? In fact, after the United States National Cancer Institute's 25-year screening program, no anti tumour drug was found from the animal testing involved.
Animal Testing

A requirement of human drug administration created by the FDA requires all drugs to have some form of formidable animal testing. Simply because the FDA mandates this, doesn't imply that animal testing is the be-all, end-all of drug testing for humans. The FDA allows drugs to be purchased on the market that have never even had human testing (Stachura, Sheree. "Drug Safety: An Argument to Ban Animal Testing"). Therefore, since the human population believes that since a drug receives FDA approval, it must be safe. However, the real test subjects are the believers themselves, those that take the drug on the word of the FDA that it is safe. Any drug that does not undergo human testing prior to its release it is deemed safe on the basis of animal testing. Knowing the differences in biological function between animals and humans, with animal tests and human results being the same only 5% to 25% of the time, one cannot infer that animal testing is a "good" tool for understanding how humans may react to drug administration. Any model derived from animal tested data for the use of human medicine is, at best, a poorly fit model. It is essentially a stab in the dark at whether or not a drug will be effective in humans. Despite that there have been advancements in human medicine based off of animal testing, the efficiency with which the animal testing leads to the creation of drugs that are effective for warding off disease and not detrimental to those taking is far too low to consider it the best mode of advancement for human medicine. My opponent has already conceded that there has not been a "cure all" cancer drug developed from animal research. Considering the vast amount of research has already been completed on animals concerning cancer, will a "cure all" cancer drug ever be developed from animal research? Based on the shortcomings so far, coupled with the vast differences in physiology between humans and animals, the future looks bleak. The idea that animal testing is the best method for advancement in medicine, given that little research (in comparison to animal testing) on alternatives to animal testing for the advancement of human medicine is preposterous. Animal testing spread rapidly as a new medical technology in the 19th century. Compared to similar technologies created in the same time period, not much of the tried and true original methods exist today. So why continue relying on an old science that continues to give marginal results?
Pepsi is better than Coke

Coke might have less sugar and less caffeine but Pepsi uses real sugar as Coke is moving into Splenda and other stuff like that. Pepsi spends more than a million dollars to host the Pepsi haft time show for the Super bowl that most Americans will watch. Pepsi owns most of our beloved sodas like Cheerwine, Serra Mist, and Mt Dew. Pepsi Next was a million + dollar project Most of Coke is made outside of North America because the "world loves Coke" but Pepsi makes their drinks in NC and in NY. Coke has more of a sugary, but bitter taste unlike Pepsi being more sweet. Pepsi adds are more entertaining. Like we got Nikki Minahj and One Direction in our adds. Coke is all calm about sharing a Coke
Pepsi is better than Coke

Please don't just copy and paste into a debate. Its really annoying and I can see how you lost all of your debates. You might of qouted the auother but this is disrepecful to his hard work he did to make this peice of wrighting. To debate you got to resarch information not copy and paste it on to a debate. Its a form of plagrisming. I hope next round you can bring me some of your information citied or if not I won this debate by doing nothingPS I gave you the rules
Left Twix is better than Right Twix

First off you said and I quote: "Only 10% of people are left handed, so that's an example of how rare the left side is, making the left Twix the lesser one because of right being superior than them." Please clarify your position, as this makes it look like you support right Twix. Right Twix are objectively better. They have more chocolate and crunch, the part of candy that more people like, and can eat, than caramel. On the subject of lefties and righties, lefties being rarer does not mean that they are more valuable than righties ( except for pitching in baseball). Bears as a collective group are predominantly left handed. Does that mean that righty bears are better? Neither your argument taken literally nor your meta-argument make much sense.
Left Twix is better than Right Twix

If you go to Twix's main website (www.twix.com) it shows a diagram of a Twix wrapper. If you look at the wrapper the way the website shows you, then you can determine the left side. Even though both sides of the Twix bar are made of the same ingredients, they are made slightly different to give them their different characteristics. People who lean to the right choose right things, like the right Twix and same goes for the left. Only 10% of people are left handed, so that's an example of how rare the left side is, making the left Twix the lesser one because of right being superior than them. It's not because of the tatse of the Twix, it's the whole psychology of it.
Left Twix is better than Right Twix

More than half of America leans to the left in a very specific way (3 guesses). Then there is the nature of Twix themselves. Twix as I have seen are often altogether popped into one's moth, not treated as two bites. Also, it is hard to tell what is left and right, as Twix are (hopefully or something went wrong) symmetrical. Then to respond to creativity being an issue, J highly doubt Twix eating habits reflect the uniqueness of lefties.
Left Twix is better than Right Twix

For starters, left handed people are more psychological and tend to be more creative and smart. There tends to be more right handed people, so the majority of people tend to go to the "right side" and go for "right" stuff. An example of that would be Twix. More people eat the right Twix first before left Twix. This could result in them enjoying the first Twix they had, but when they get to the other one, they might not enjoy it as much because they already had one. The left side is the more rare side, making it special in a way. The left Twix is ignored, so people don't tend to understand that it's the better one because of the idea that society likes to go "right."
Capitalism is superior to Communism/Socialism

Rebuttal: My opponent claims that Russia is a capitalist nation, when in fact it is Socialist with a Capitalist market. Is clearly stated in the constitution. Which you can openly read, below in the sources {2}. My opponent claims that China's growth is attributed to adoption of Capitalist policies. But, in reality the real economic growth is attributed to the mix of both capitalist and socialist policies. My opponent states that there is a fault in my argument when I said Chairman Mao did not order the death of 40 million people. But the source that he used stated that most people died due to famine. So I thank my opponent for helping me rebutted himself. My opponent then goes on saying that Mao and Lenin were "elected", which is false. I specifically said in my Debate that they were "chosen" not "elected". Because the way they got to power was via a revolution not a election. He further claimed that Sri Lanka is "partially" communist. When in its entire constitution there is no mention of it. He further claims that Singapore is a Capitalist nation, not a socialist state when I formally proved that In its constitution it says that it is socialist. In response one he claims that a various injustice were committed by "the state". Once I looked into the source it showed me the amount of people jailed in the United States. Not a socialist state. My opponent has used a false source yet again! He has helped me. In the source, it claims that 262 million people were jailed in the United states due to racial profiling. In response two, he claims that he claims that Capitalism is not the cause of the Great Depression, which is entirely false. The entire great depression was caused by the Capitalist sytem. The capitalist way of "Distribution due to greed" caused it. Further reading of it can be found in {1} in the sources. Sources for rebuttal: {1}http://xroads.virginia.edu... {2}http://www.constitution.ru... http://www.atimes.com... http://reason.com... Argument one Having a socialist based system would lead to or recessions or depressions. All Capitalist production leads every five or ten years to a recession. In other words, when the capitalist can't sell all the produce that they have created in order to maximize profits they get rid of thousands upon thousands of workers. The current economic crisis has seen 9 million familes loosing there homes after the biggest housing construction boom. So now capitalist consider money be more important than people? It now comes up to just plain ethics. Where else if this were a socialist system this senario would have played out in a different manner. Conclusion I push my former arguments, and thanks for reading! Sources: http://ireport.cnn.com... https://www.boundless.com... http://huameieng4u-01.wikispaces.com...
Capitalism is superior to Communism/Socialism

I am defending Socialism, and my opponent claims that he stated to choose whether to defend Communism or Socialism but never stated it clearly in his first argument. He uses a meer "/" symbol as a differentiator. "/" can mean numerous things. Now that we have resolved the confusion in this debate. I shall state one of my arguments. Firstly, Socialism offers more to persons with less wealth.Capitalism puts a premium on unbridled freedom rather than egalitarian equality. Wherelse Socialist get the same wage's nevertheless of position. I now conclude.
Capitalism is superior to Communism/Socialism

My opponent firstly fails to define communism and socalism as two different systems. Socalism in a nutshell is defined as :"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Where else communism is " a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." I have defined my topic as above. Now I end round one, as my opponents rules state.
Practical effects are better than CGI

This is a pleasant way to finish off the debate; you state your emotional attachments to practical effects and how a machine should not produce them. Due to your emotional attachments to the physical effects you see CGi as almost a curse. However you are very mistaken. Simply because an effect is machine generated, as I have attempted to give you an explanation of in the electro music analogy in the round 1 debate, does not make it less effective. If you have a computer generated effect, it could be just as realistic as real-life; the issue is that at present it is not quite to that 'perfect' standard due to the limitations of current software. The main issue discussed, whether CGI could ever stand alone and overtake physical effects as opposed to only be a brush-up of physical effects, is completely justified by the film Avatar. If we have something as graphically spectacular (As I hav proven to you from quotes of movie critics it is spectacular) today then there could, and will, be more spectacular improvements on the graphics and ability to generate computerised effects. It is very naive to think that because something is not physically created that it is less artistic; CGI merely open up an era of art that can only be achieved using computers! And so, as I believe I have disproven all points you have made and I see that your only arguments against CGI are that of failed attempts to use it (herego using it incorrectly) in horror movies I conclude that CGi can, and will, take over physical effects due to a complete lac of limitations to create artistic effects on a computer when compared with physical effects and the brilliant quality as observed in Avatar.