BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Testing

Without specifying the "new solution" you suggest, we must assume that abolishing the practice of animal testing will either result in no testing for those products or testing on humans, at least for the time being. I will therefore argue that animal testing for medical research is worthwhile and more ethical than its abolition. Starting with your first point: "So why are they considered less valuable than humans?" -Instead of debating whether animal's experiences are equal to human experience, I will try to point out how human life is more valuable by assuming first that it isn't. If human life was equal or inferior to animal life, which is what you would logically conclude if it wasn't MORE valuable, then we would assume that animal lives would be worth more than a a lesser number of human lives. For example, if you were forced to choose between sacrificing the life of one person or of three people, you would choose the one person if you had no obligations to prefer one life over the others. So in the same way, if you were forced to choose between one human life and several animal lives, for example, three fish, you should give preference to the higher number if you truly believed in the equality of humans and animals. No ethical person would kill a human being for the sake of three fish, and everyone would agree that it is the better decision. "If anything, humans should be tested on because humans have the privilege of choice and can voluntarily volunteer their bodies." Despite the ability of humans to give informed consent, voluntary human testing cannot be a replacement for animal testing, especially for medical research. Drugs are tested on animal to ensure their safety or effectiveness in treating a particular disease. Very few, if any, people would volunteer for testing like this because of the risks involved to their health and even to their lives. Researchers would have to offer some sort of incentive, such as money. This would single out the economically disadvantaged for testing, another kind of discrimination, and also raise the costs of medical research and possibly the drugs themselves. Even without the negative consequences of recruiting volunteers in this manner, the testing itself would bring immeasurable harm to the participants. And finally: "I propose that, with all of the technology we have at our fingertips, maybe a new solution could be innovated." The precise reason you would need to test out drugs is to observe effects that you were unable to predict. Advancements in medicine that allow us to predict negative side effects without testing, but we still perform testing for the "just in case." You would need to know absolutely everything to eliminate the need for testing, and until we can predict with absolute certainty, we will always need that "just in case."
Animal Testing

Animal testing is a cruel and should be abolished. Apropos animal testing, what a deplorable procedure a vivisection is. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Of course there are benefits, but why should innocent animals have to suffer? The answer is: an animal's life is considered less valuable than a human's. Why? Animals veritably do not have a lesser capacity for pain then humans. Although it may sound anthropomorphic, animals can suffer emotionally. When an animal is separated from its young it grieves. Of course an animal can suffer pain. Most animals have the same pain sensory receptors that humans do. So why are they considered less valuable than humans? Animals don't have a voice and can't represent themselves in our society. Because of that, they must accept whatever fate humans impose on them. If anything, humans should be tested on because humans have the privilege of choice and can voluntarily volunteer their bodies. This too, however, is unacceptable. I propose that, with all of the technology we have at our fingertips, maybe a new solution could be innovated.
Fish are Awesome

My opponent has given me 2 points to match what by my count is 33 separate points and sub-points: My opponent says: 1. I've "strayed" too far from the topic My response======= As for her/his first point, I have EXPRESSED in EVERY ROUND NOTHING BUT EXPLANATIONS for why I am choosing to talk about trolling, why my opponent is trolling, and why trolling is bad, and why my case helps stop trolling. My opponent has dropped all of these. See particularly my arguments 1-8. My opponent's dismissive first point is evidence against him/herself: My opponent literally missed every single one of my arguments explaining why this is the relevant debate. In addition, my opponent dropped all of my points, thereby conceding that trolling is relevant to the topic. Not only that, but my opponent did not even say WHY the debate is about Fish being awesome. (S)He refused to give even one reason for this. I'm afraid that this is not even a debate, since there's no arguments to debate. Remember, my entire case explains why I am debating this way. By dropping all of these points and not reading my case, my opponent is being very rude. ==== My opponent says: 2. I have not stated whether fish are awesome or not. My answer===== Yes I did. This proves that my opponent did not even read my debate. And I quote: "NOT all fish are awesome. There is lots of pollution. Dolphins are killed for example by tuna fishers. They are not "awesome." They're in pain." http://www.allaboutwildlife.com...... Discussion======= I have clearly explained why trolling is harmful to debate, why my opponent is trolling, why trolling should stop on DDO, and why voting for me will help this. My opponent dropped all of these points, so voters are forced to say that I win the arguments. Additionally, in my previous argument, I have explained why I have won in terms of grammar, in terms of conduct, in terms of sources, and in terms of argumentation. I have also explained that fish are great, but they are not doing "excellent" since many are hurt. I have nothing against debating about fish. However, my opponent has proved that (s)he doesn't really want to debate. Thus, I win. Conclusion=== There is literally no reason my opponent gave for me to lose. My opponent effectively CONCEDED (possibly an effect due to trolling) that I should gain all of the points from voters, including GRAMMAR, ARGUMENTS, SOURCES, and CONDUCT, as well as an overall win. Thanks for reading, and thanks to my opponent for a fair debate. Make sure to vote! --Opp
Fish are Awesome

What I will be discussing in this round is a criticism not aimed at my opponent personally, but at a situation (trolling! ) on debate. com that continues to be problematic. I would like to use this round first and foremost to express my utter frustration at trolls. While I could use this space to humor the debater, this would only support and supply the problem at hand. I could also ignore this topic, but then someone else might accept this challenge and spend several rounds spewing whatever words happen to come to this persons head. Both conditions: 1) Would be disrespectful toward other debaters who sincerely use this website as a means of achieving a greater understanding and expressing themselves, and not simply as a time-waster. 2) Would allow trolls to vote more easily than non-trolls. Someone who wants a few quick but irrational rounds will access voting privileges faster than one who doesn't troll. While voting for me won't change that fact, it will at least be a way of de-incentivizing trolling and rewarding people for actually debating. 3) Would make people less likely to take voting seriously. Because there are so many troll rounds, it makes those who vote tend to think that these their duties are less important. This type of debate may even influence voters to impatiently not read through a full debate carefully. I know this frustrates everyone; by voting my opponent down you will have validated the need to vote carefully. In order to put an end to trolling, I have decided to intercept this round to make my views known. Stop the trolling! !! !! !
Hillary is tops among the Dems

I am personally a Republican and despise Hillary Clinton. That said, I have been watching the Democratic nomination unfold and am baffled that Hillary hasn't run away with the nomination already. She is far and away the best candidate. If you watch any of the debates, Hillary is clearly the most knowledgable and prepared. It seems like Obama just throws around a lot of optimistic rhetoric, while Edwards panders to the 'middle class' (who doesn't think they are in the middle class). I'm not trying to claim she is most electable, but I do think it is obvious that she is the best candidate for the job on the Democratic side.
The Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical

It appears that you're trying to justify multiple interpretations to be TRUE regarding the Bible. This is not my definition of Biblical. To me, Biblical implies the original faith of Christ, the faith of His Apostles and their followers. Trying to justify an evolution is a new age theory that makes no biblical sense. Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I do not change; Before I address your scripture quotes, I want to clarify that I do accept a trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, I do not accept the extra biblical terminology nor the explanation of the trinity. The Nicene teaching convoluted the original faith. Gen 1:26 Refers to God and His heavenly host, nothing about a hypostatises or 3 in 1. Isaiah 6:8 Speaks of Isaiah, not a man named Jesus. Isaiah 48:16 Also speaks of Isaiah. The rest of the NT passages you quoted do not teach the Trinity Doctrine nor have any of them really been used to justify the pagan doctrine except for 1 John 5:7 which still doesn't prove anything. The "ONE" that is mentioned implies ONE in unity not ONE THING. Again, I understand your examples, I simply reject that God is an IT in 3 WHO's, which is exactly what the Trinity Doctrine teaches. God as described in the OT does not imply 3 gods in 1 God. This did not change in NT times, the language just changed from Hebrew to Greek. ONE means 1, not multiples of 1. So trying to justify a false narrative can't work. 1+1+1=1 defies logic, it doesn't even make sense. One would think that in the thousands of Bible verses, God could have simply said, "By the way I'm not actually ONE I'm THREE IN ONE." To me there is only ONE truth, not multiple truths. My argument is that the original faith that Christ taught DID NOT include the Trinity Doctrine. He taught that God is our father and He is His son. Very simple and straight forward, all this extra mumbo jumbo is just man corrupting the original. You say that God is triune yet God never says that He is triune...notice the irony? As for your last question I'm not sure I understand it, please rephrase. Thanks!
The Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical

Thank you for the reply, Well for one, it appears that you agree with me more then disagree. I will keep this short and just outline some statements that I disagree with and why. 1. The passages you quoted are taken out of context. None of them are Messianic prophecies. These in particular are referring to Soloman, the son of David who was to build the first temple in the place of his father David. Immanuel does mean "God with us". However this does not imply a devine significance. Many Hebrew names have "God" in them. For instance: Hezekiah in Hebrew means "Mighty God". Yet I don't see people making him a part of a trinity. This was very common in the olden times and should be understood in its context. Elijah also had a devine name. 2. I understand the analogy, I just don't agree that it even has a place here to begin with. ONE does not mean "3 in 1". It means ONE. In the Hebrew, God is ONE, as in, singular. Not a compound ONE, there is a different word in the Hebrew to describe what you want it to say but they didn't use it. Instead, they used the only word in the entire language that really means ONE. As for the rest of your response, you agree with me. My point is proven that early Christians did not believe in the Trinty Doctrine. This was a perversion that evolved in Greek minded church fathers over hundreds of years.
The Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical

If you're basing that statement just on the fact, that it's not written on the bible, i will tell you: "Although the New Testament does not teach the Trinity as a formal doctrine, it clearly teaches that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus prays to the Father "thy will be done," implying that he is not the same person as the Father. He promises to send the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, to guide the disciples and keep them faithful to the truth of his teachings. By the second century, the Fathers of the Church, after many years of reflection on the teachings of Jesus, began to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, showing our growing understanding of the nature of God." Now.. if you're arguing that God is suppose to be One and not three and that it doesn't make any sense... Just imagine that God is water and pretend that Jesus is water steam and the holy spirit is rain or something like this. Next.. Even if Jesus, was just a man which was completely fulfilled with God. I don't understand why it can't be assumed that he kinda become God himself. Do you know horcruxes from Harry Potter? Can you admit that this random objects and beings became part of Voldemort? Or though the soul of Voldemort is in several objects, it continues to exist only one Voldemort? I hope it made sense and you enjoyed the comparison. I will wait for arguments, I hope you have some good ones! And to be honest, I don't believe in this stuff. But I think the trinity isn't by faaaaaar the most unbiblical or incomprehensible thing on Christianity.
The Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical

Thank you for the passion Maria, I assure you it was not my intention to appear arrogant or ignorant. The fact is I do have fairly good understanding of the Bible. You may have thousands of experts on your side but I also have thousands on mine, so really it's a moot point. I'll answer each point you made then conclude with a statement. 1. By this definition, anybody can interpret anything they want, then justify it by scripture and say its true. To say that there are multiple truths is never taught in scripture. In the Bible its either Gods ONE way or your way. 2. You're comparing apple and oranges. Doing what Christ instructs us to do is not "evolution". It's simply following his examples and what he teaches. However, when a doctrine is created devoid of what scripture says, this is a deviation from the mean and must be exposed. So in this case, yes, the early Christians did not believe in the trinity doctrine, therefore what we have today is a perversion of the original. 3. Righto 4. My point is, if the trinity doctrine is what people say it is, why doesn't God at least mention it once? No where does He say that He is not actually ONE but 3 in 1 in a triune hypostasis. 5. Again, it was not my intention to come off that way but if you felt that way then I apologize. By the looks of what you've posted I would suggest you do more research instead of having to google Trinitarian biblical passages. 6. Of course God is a loving being, but what does that have to do with a doctrine that was formulated by men 400 years after Christ was on earth? I agree that there are three in heaven named the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we are not debating this. We are debating on whether or not they are one person and co equal. I feel like you are misunderstanding exactly what the Trinity Doctrine preaches. 7. No problem! In conclusion, I would have to say you are using points that may hold in your mind but scripturally and scholarly they don't make sense. A trinitarian scholar would point to the Bible and church tradition to defend his point, while anti trinitarians would say the trinitarians are misunderstanding the scriptures. Both sides agree that there is ONE true interpretation and MANY false interpretations. You however are saying it doesn't really matter what interpretation because the truth changes, the TRUE interpretation 2000 years ago is no longer true because of the evolution of the interpretation. The only person who can change anything is God, human evolution has nothing to do with the truth. Now I would also ask the readers to notice the scripture arguments you brought forward held no water, you kept using idioms and examples to explain something that is not even clearly explained in the scriptures. However you did a good job and I look forward to next time! Remember, Gods word is true forever! It doesn't change through human evolution. God's nature, truth and standards have never changed, human interpretation at times has deviated but its our job to get back to the original, not defend the perversion.
The Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical

1. I'm not trying to justify the truthfulness of any biblical interpretations, I'm just trying to justify the biblical basis of one particular interpretation. 2. Saying that the human understanding of God and Jesus cannot evolve is obsolete and unbiblical. If everyone thought like that, Jesus teachings would have been useless, since nobody would have cared about them. He came to change the perspective and the idea that people had about God, if nobody was open to this change, Jesus life would have been pointless. 3. I won't try to debate your understanding of "unbiblical". 4. I thought that we've already agreed that the idea of the talking God, that tells people specific sentences to them to write down, wasn't very reasonable --' The fact that no prophet had the epiphany of a trinity God doesn't have any consequences to this matter. 5. Saying that the Holy Trinity is "mumbo jumbo" and a "perversion" is a show of arrogance, ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of the Bible. I won't try to explain it better, I just invite you to read more about it. I also want to point out that there are a few thousands of really smart scholars that have been studying this matters for a really long time... Though I may not understand or agree with all of their claims, I give them at least enough credibility to believe that they have basis to support those claims. (ad populum and ad verecundiam - I'm not trying to use these fallacies to make my point, just to call you to reason.) 6. According to the Bible God is an all loving Being, but for loving you need love and someone to love. Therefore you have "the father", "the son" and "the holy spirit". Being trine, God is complete. Is an eternal exchange of love, the holy spirit, between the father and the son. If God is just One, he can't love being unique and alone. God can't just love Himself, because love is not selfish. God can also not be just love, because love to exist requires two persons to love each other. 7. And sorry if I was rude! I just got a bit carried away :p But I want to thank you for bringing up this theme and to make me think about it! :) My position didn't changed, but I've learned some new things! I hope you can say the same in the end! :) Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon!
Governments should deficit spend in a recesion

The graphs in the references you provided show that government debt in Australia and Canada temporarily declined in the early 2000s and then resumed its growth. In both cases the decline coincided with the skyrocketing prices for natural resources (which are the main export of both countries). It is true that some countries can occasionally get lucky and solve their short term economic problems by selling their oil, gas, etc. However, for most countries this is not a realistic expectation. Recessions certainly cause a lot of pain, but overspending is not going to solve the problem. All it can do is postpone it until it grows too big to be postponed any further. Anyways, thank you for the discussion. I hope that history will prove that you were right and my pessimistic prognosis was entirely groundless.
Governments should deficit spend in a recesion

1) Subprime mortgages and Greek treasury bills were also recently regarded as very low risk...I know markets can be wrong...but it does not follow that just because markets can be wrong that US T-bills are risky. And, subprime morgages (meaning more risky than prime) and greek t-tbills are regarded as more risky than usa treasury bills. 2) Correct. But the debt to GDP ratio has more than tripled over the last thirty years. It has in the usa, but even so the usa has reduced their debt that got the out of the great depression. (1) Canada has reduced their debt burden through the 1960s and 1990s into the 2000s. (2) Australia also has decreased their debt burden throughout the late 90s. It seems my opponent is wrong when he stated that in virtually all countries the debt is always going up. At leat he was wrong about the debt burden going up.(3) Where did you get those numbers?If you follow the link I gace, you will see the numbers from the federal budget. But, the numbers refer to public debt. That is why there is a difference. The numbers I showed still make my point that the debt burden is reduced by governments.As I have stated recesions are terrible things. They are unfair, cause hardship, damage to people and damage to the future economy. However, if the government steps in and spends (because no one else will, that is why there is a recesion), they can end the recesion. Demand will increase and unused factories/equiptment will be used and unemplyed people will be unemployed. The unemployment rate does not plumet not caused because everyone becomes stupid/lazy, it plummets because everyone is scared to spend. I do not believe countries should spend forever. They become fiscally responsible when the recesionis up. But during a recesion countries should spend, grow GDP and end the recesion. (1) http://news.nationalpost.com...(2) http://www.afr.com...
Governments should deficit spend in a recesion

1) "SA treasury bills are regarded as RISK free by investors" Subprime mortgages and Greek treasury bills were also recently regarded as very low risk. We know how that ended. To be fair, it is possible that the US government will remain solvent in the next ten years. However, the longer it continues to live on the borrowed money, the worse the final crash is going to be. 2) "GDP ratio is much more important metric" Correct. But the debt to GDP ratio has more than tripled over the last thirty years. It did fall for a while after the WWII (which was obviously a one-time catastrophic event). Back then governments were able to cut the military spending without hurting the voters. However, now most of the government spending goes to social programs which can be seriously cut only at the cost of political suicide. 3) "In England in 1950 debt was 2.5 times GDP, and now it is about .5 times GDP. In the USA Debt of .8 GDP in 1950 and now it is about .35 times GDP. " Where did you take those numbers? The official government statistics states that the government debt is now over 90 and 100% of the GDP for the UK and the US respectively (excluding unfunded liabilities to Social Security and Medicare programs which would triple the latter number).