BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Testing for Cosmetics

Ah, that would be a problem. Well okay so there's still a good argument to be made for it. to assess what stays from my last post: rats are still a alternative to humans that if disallowed from testing on create a environment which has to gamble on human lives or not try potentially beneficial products altogether. Imagine I've reconsidered all morals I had since the election results. First of all cosmetics are a important and valuable part of our society it's not essential but they're beneficial. Appearance is undoubtedly a incredibly important part of any modern life. Physiologists agree that first impression are the strongest and hardest to change assessment of another person, people also experience the phenomena called the halo effect that's when someone assessing you (professionally or casually) identifies a strong positive trait ,like a exceptional appearance, they are more likely view other your other traits as being positive e.g the same person can be viewed as driven or bossy based on a good or bad first impressions. Cosmetics also help self esteem, when someone gets a zit or any time of blemish they can use cosmetics to help make it less noticeable and not worry about if other people are aware of it. Make up helps people achieve the look they want including not naturally available looks like bright pastels or dark Gothic colors to manage your outer appearance and vibe. Cosmetics also are large economic business employing many workers and chemists. It also encourages spending which is good in a market economy. And many can make a hobby of it learning to contour or color theroy to help manifest their ideal image of themselves . Rene Descartes the father of the scientific method in his discourse on method famously said "I think therefore I am" he proposed that this is a major distinction between animals and humans. Human think, animals with less complex and developed brains have yet to reach a point where they can override instinct and truly consider and understand their actions and surroundings. Rats are alive and feel pain but so do most things considered alive, plants have a response to stimuli that is comparable to when animals with a nervous system and brain experience painful stimuli. Harvesting our food can similarly cause pain experienced by some lab rats. Rats are invasive species that spoil food and spread diseases without pest control methods like chemicals and traps our way of life could be considerably damaged their existence is crucial to a cycle of life but lack benefit and therefore are a prime candidate compared to other more benificial animals. And in the end many aren't that inconvenienced many cosmetics are considered safe and do no hard and the rats and in the end the rats are rewarded with food possibly keeping some rats that would be unable to thrive in nature alive.
Animal Testing for Cosmetics

I love animals but it really comes down to the benefits outweighing the cost. We as humans use and are effected by many things. Testing on animals allows us to be able to test these potentially dangerous drugs and ointments that if proven safe can save more a significantly higher amount of lives then it put in risk. It also allows us to try and figure out how to treat or deal with diseases and vaccines a list of some of medical cures advanced by use of animal subjects include: Penicillin, Blood transfusion, Tuberculosis, Macular degeneration, Asthma, Meningitis, Kidney Transplants, Breast cancer, Parkinson"s disease, and Insulin. The sad truth is that without it we would be possibly denying advancement for treatment of horrible diseases. And yes they should be used sparingly not just subjected to cruelty for no good reason. IACUCs or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and other similar boards looks to try and minimize this exact things for both medical testing and physiological studies if you are interested look up the IACUC protocol review in which you have to hit three major requirements to be approved for testing.
Animal Testing for Cosmetics

Argument: Should animal testing be used in the field of cosmetics? By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc. This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics. My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals. Definitions Cruelty: text book definition 2
Animal Testing for Cosmetics

The point is to try and find every danger that you can letting a hazardous chemical through like that is a fault of the people testing it. The reasoning wasn't that testing makes cosmetics more important it's that the important of cosmetics means that it doesn't waste time when it tests their products. The same argument I made in the first round when i defended it's use to cure diseases. The tests are done for a good cause. I'm going to ignore the part where you misread my comment and rephrase my last point. Yes humans are animals but animals like rats that are below the threshold to go against their instincts should not be considered with the same set of morals as humans.
Animal Testing for Cosmetics

Although human lives are not at risk by many of the chemicals placed into cosmetics, the chemicals can still cause damage to the consumer. Certain ingredients in cosmetics can be deemed "safe for use" when in actuality the ingredients can still be hazardous, but are still used in the final cosmetic product. One example of this is a common chemical found in red lipstick known as Methylparaben. Methylparaben has been linked to accelerating and causing the growth of cancer cells in the body. This specific chemical is deemed as a moderate hazard, but is still used even though it can cause serious damage to people using it. If something is going to be deemed hazardous but still used anyway, what is the point of animal testing in the first place if the whole point of it was to deem the ingredients safe for use? Testing is not a direct measure of worth for a product. Cosmetics may be important to society, but the testing of those cosmetics on animals has no direct affect on the importance value of the product to the consumer. Most consumer do not care if a product was tested on animals or was not tested on animals. If cosmetics are as important to society as you say then the purchasing of the cosmetics by the consumer should not cease just because animals were not used in the testing process. If the presence of animals during the testing process is insignificant to the consumer, then why is it still necessary? Descartes was attempting to define the difference between humans and other animals with his famous quote famous "I think therefore I am". His statement has no direct relation to whether testing on humans is less or more moral than testing on animals. Humans biologically are animals, the same as rats. If humans are animals then stating that "testing on them (animals) isn't on the same level as testing on humans" is implying that animals in the set of human are somehow more important than animals in other sets. Evidence of self awareness is not a good measure of the value of life, since everything is equally living, be that life a human animal or a rat animal.
Animal Testing for Cosmetics

Some cosmetics can hurt human participants especially when they include ingredients like harmful chemicals, heavy metals, bacteria, and other hazardous things. The argument as to why cosmetics was important was to show the necessity they were tested that included the argument of their benefits to self esteem. If a product is not worth making it's not worth testing I've seen some people downplay the importance of cosmetics for the sake of their argument. The cogito statement wasn't to prove animals weren't alive i was saying that they aren't on the level of human thought and comprehension and therefore should testing on them isn't on the same level as testing on humans morally. Technically it would prove animals are alive since you are able to know you're alive, with the exception of solipsists.
the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels"

Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline and JP4. Electric motors powered by a combination of stored energy, in batteries, and a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term this is readily appparent the sooner that we start down the correct path, the sooner we have what we ALL 100% want - an energy economy completely run on carbon-less currency electrons and water, hydrogen and oxygen anyone want to argue with this ? feel free this is THE preeminent debate we need to have nationally
You Choose the Resolution

Note: Italicised texts are direct quotations of my opponent.I want to thank my opponent for his reply. As stated in the structure, I will only be rebutting pro's opening arguments.Pro's arguments focuses on the economic aspects of President Obama's policies, namely the stimulus package, Dodd-Frank and the effects on the housing market and employment.Although the unemployment rate is certainly lower today than it was when Obama became President, the stimulus package that was passed in response to the Great Recession prolonged the recession and unemployment. Brian M. Riedl notes: "All recessions eventually end. The U.S. economy has proved resilient enough to eventually overcome even the most misguided economic policies of the past. Yet it would be fallacious to credit the stimulus bill for any economic recovery that inevitably occurs in the future."The employment rate that was projected by Obama with and without the stimulus can be seen in this chart [2]. Peter Ferrara further argues: "In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years. But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses." [3] The recession should have been over much earlier than what actually occured. In conclusion, Obama's economic policies harmed America by prolonging a major recession and keeping Americans out of work longer than they needed to be. "Other steps taken to ensure financial responsibility was the establishment of the Dodd-Frank Act. A package that also aimed at protecting taxpayers by ending bailouts of failing institutions and preventing financial crimes as part of the consumer protection policy"The Dodd-Frank act that was cited by pro has been a failure and has also greatly harmed America. For one, it has "crushed smaller banks, restricted access to credit, and planted the seeds of financial instability." [4] Jeb Hensarliny argues: "Dodd-Frank was supposedly aimed at Wall Street, but it hit Main Street hard. Community financial institutions, which make the bulk of small business loans, are overwhelmed by the law’s complexity. Government figures indicate that the country is losing on average one community bank or credit union a day." [4]While regulations are important, they should be used to prevent bad behaviour, not place unneeded restrictions on other activities. I will concede to the point of the housing market, but that one point is certainly overshadowed by the points above.Sources1. http://www.heritage.org... 2. http://www.aei.org... 3. http://www.forbes.com... 4. http://www.wsj.com...
You Choose the Resolution

As per the rules, I will provide a 11 resolutions for my opponent to choose from.1. Resolved: That Barack Obama's presidency has been, on balance, good for America2. Resolved: That those on the no-fly list should be banned from purchasing firearms3. Resolved: That vaccines should be mandatory. 4. Resolved: That A society has an obligation to ensure adequate health care for its citizens 5. Resolved: That the United States should regret the PATRIOT Act.6. Resolved: That foods made with genetically modified ingredients ought to be labeled7. Resolved: That the United States should establish a single-payer healthcare system.8. Resolved: That scientific consensus is not a worthwhile metric9. Resolved: That the United States should switch to the metric system of measurement.10. Resolved: This house would impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices.11. Resolved: This house would impose term limits on Congress. As per the rules, I will not provide any definitions, frameworks, introductory statements or sources in this round. I eagerly await to see which resolution my opponent chooses and which side he takes.
You Choose the Resolution

I'll also choose the position I'll be arguing on; despite the fact that I'm listed as con. The opposition cannot use any definitions, frameworks, introductory statements, sources, etc. when presenting his / or her resolutions. After I've chosen the topic, the debate will begin. ==Rules== 1. I reserve the right to change any resolution that is abusive, unfair or nonsensical. For example, a good example would be as follows: "America's economy would surge if we return to the gold standard" or "Progressive tax is unlawful by the constitution". You get the idea. 2. The BoP is shared, meaning that if you think it's a tie, don't vote. 3. Citations are mandatory when listing information / evidence and quotes. There is no specific format for listing your sources. If you wish, you may shorten your URLs by using Bitly or Tinyurl. 4. Please keep it civil 5. Please vote based on how well the arguments were presented, not on your opinions or beliefs. 6. Forfeiture = automatic loss ==Debate Outline== 7. First round = resolutions 8. Second round will be opening arguments 9. Round three will be rebuttals 10 Round four is the defense of your arguments and closing statements ==Note== If you want to accept the debate, but you're dissatisfied with some of the rules, please notify me and I'll change them. I'm trying to make this debate as free as possible, please feel free to use any format to present your arguments.
Monty Python is Funny

Nothing funny about Monty Python (MP). Even Fozzy Bear agrees: click="document.location='/Naysayer/photos/album/2707/18442/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/3/2707/85970-2707-uv98c-a.jpg" alt="" />That's one disappointed bear.The Inquisition had 3000-5000 executed victims. Not something to snicker at. I imagine they weren't expecting that.MP is ecclectic and random, but not funny. They are anticlimatic and sarcastic, but it isn't levity.Watch the disappointing ending to Holy Grail, a well known movie as modern police arrest medieval knights.http://www.youtube.com...
Monty Python is Funny

Monty python is funny. To deny their funny, you'd have to be in a coma, dead, brainless, humorless or otherwise humor impaired. Objective measures show that people who watch Monty Python are more likely to stay home and watch Monty Python movies than go out on a date.Studies show a lot of things, not necessarily about Monty Python, but a ot of really interesting things, and if you added them all up?Monthy Python = funny.I submit as my final closing:http://www.youtube.com...
The Democratic Party receives more funding than the Republican Party

Now let's start! "With Citizens United, basically in Romney's paraphrased words "making corporations people", the creation of Super PACs such as American Crossroads and American Crossroads GPS, both started by Karl Rove, and the infusion of moneys by the Koch Brothers into Republican races, the GOP has become drastically more funded than the Democratic Party. " Let's take this statement apart. We will start with Citizens United. Citizens United PAC actually started recently (it was around before that, but not as a PAC). From 1994 to 2012, it received a total of $1,640,010 and spent a total of $1,071,305 (. http://www.opensecrets.org...). American Crossroads PAC has only been around for 2010 midterms and the 2012 election. They have made $29,927,515 during that time and have spent $5,165,886 of it (. http://www.opensecrets.org...). American Crossroads GPS is a Super PAC and has spent $1,199,752 (. http://www.opensecrets.org...). The Koch Brothers have spent a total of $12,733,249 from 1989 to 2012 (. http://www.opensecrets.org...). In total, the four groups that my opponent has presented have spent a total of $20,170,192 to the GOP. Remember that number. Now I will present my own four organizations that are in with the Democrats. My first is ActBlue, launched in 2004, and it is currently a federally registered PAC. From 1989 to 2012 it has spent a total of $62,816,969 on the Democrats (. http://www.opensecrets.org...). Next is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and is made up of 3,500 local unions representing 1.4 million workers. They have spent a total of $47,977,038 on the Democrats (. http://www.opensecrets.org...) from 1989 to 2012. Next is the National Education Association, the oldest and largest teachers union. The NEA has spent $41,412,233 on the Democrats (. http://www.opensecrets.org...). Finally, we have the Service Employees International Union which represents 1.5 million workers. It has spent a total of $38,237,146 from 1989 to 2012 (. http://www.opensecrets.org...). Now let's add that up. That is precisely a total of $190,443,386 that they have spent on the Democrats. $20,170,192 for the Republicans vs. $190,443,386 for the Democrats, I wonder which one is larger? This clearly proves that the Democrats are funded far more than the Republicans. I have proved that the Democrats are funded far more drastically than the Republicans.
The Democratic Party receives more funding than the Republican Party

Going back to the time of Reagan and his trickle-down economics, called "voodoo economics" by his primary opponent, George Herbert Walker Bush in '80, the Republican Party has always been the party of the well-to-do. With Citizens United, basically in Romney's paraphrased words "making corporations people", the creation of Super PACs such as American Crossroads and American Crossroads GPS, both started by Karl Rove, and the infusion of moneys by the Koch Brothers into Republican races, the GOP has become drastically more funded than the Democratic Party. This recurring theme is the result of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires, solidifying the votes and donations of the wealthiest 1%. Obama proposed raising taxes on those who make over $250,000 dollars, thus alienating any chance of moneys coming to the Democratic Party from wealthy donors, save Warren Buffett, a true American, and other scant examples like him. The Koch brothers and others like them have dumped massive amounts of money into the lap of Scott Walker to fight for him in his recall election. Republicans are far out-fundraising and outspending in that state recall election alone.
The USA government should take over Canada

My opponent has informed me that they are out of town, and are unable to debate at this time. He will (hopefully) return in the next round, and I ask you please do not deduct points from him because of this. In this round, I will build upon my previous argument. You have no evidence to show that declaring war on Canada (and then assuming the US won) would cause the US to be more powerful. I, on the other hand, think you logic is backwards. By declaring war, The US would inevitably be weaker. My evidence to support this is that we would be more vulnerable to attack, more focused on the war (and most likely not on the drug problems), and would definitely have our hands full trying to sort out this entire war situation. This shows that there is indeed more encouraging, than discouraging, the growth of drug problems Like I have said, it may not be hard to conquer Canada, but it will certainly be hard to control them. That isn't even mentioning the US's own people. There will be people unhappy with the war on both sides. As for the lifestyle's of the US and Canada, they are very different. Canada and the US alike are used to their way of life, and there are sure to be problems that arise because of these differences. One obvious example is Canada's health care policy, and government in general. As for the idea involving Canada having vast amounts of food, I disagree. My opponent claims that the food obtained from Canada could possibly feed millions of hungry families. This is highly unlikely. Conquering Canada would increase the food the US has, but it would also increase the people the US has to feed a lot also. In the area of the new US, with Canada conquered, there wouldn't be any more food produced, just more in terms of the food in the US and in Canada being combined. If Canada and the US had food to spare before (that could have been shared with the rest of the world), how would US conquering Canada cause them share it now, since they didn't before? In terms of energy, I do not see how it could save lives. And once again, conquering Canada wouldn't really change anything in this situation either (unless we adopted their style of energy production, which is unlikely). Canada would still need to use the energy they produced, with the only benefit being the reduced transportation costs should the US import energy from Canada/the new US. The only way this would change the dependency on foreign oils is by making them no longer foreign.
The USA government should take over Canada

I accept this debate and negate "The USA government should take over Canada". Despite going to war simply being unethical, there are many more reasons against it. I will start with my case. - Canada has more than fifteen million people available for service in the Canadian Forces. Many lives would be lost. - Taking over such a large country means an even greater amount of territory to govern over, and governing over such a large addition to territory at once is difficult. - The United States is often viewed as a peaceful country (in general), and if it was to go to war, it would set a bad example. - Furthermore, if the US went on to attack another country without good reason, (besides simply wanting to control and conquer them) other places will surely view it as a threat. - The US doesn't even have good reason for doing so, and as part of the United Nations, is prohibited in actions as such. Not following these rules could cause a number of problems including, a loss of allies, dislike and contempt from others, and this would overall be a step backward. - The US has been going through problems, like with the economy, on its own and declaring war would only lead to even worse ones. For my opponent's contentions: - You have no evidence to show that minimal Canadian lives will be lost. - Canada would have to comply with U.S. government rules, which would not be their normal lifestyle. - And as for his impacts, all of the impacts benefit the US, but not the population of Canada. (I am running out of time, so I'm going to post this incomplete argument now. I will return for more refutations and arguments in the second round.)