BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Theresa May a good Prime Minister

I'm a conservative, and therefore in favour of Theresa May and her opinions. I simply cannot agree with what you have said, she isn't just for the rich- she just knows that handing out millions of pounds to people on benefits that won't do any good for the UK is a complete waste of resources, and money, that could otherwise be used for the NHS and the police force. At the moment, the UK is in debt, and she has been forced to make cuts on public services, such as education, emergency services and the NHS. Once the debt is paid off, we can return back to our normal state, however the sudden influx of foreigners entering the country has been of detriment to our NHS' budget, and has forced extra housing to be put down. I'm not one of the rich ones, but I am simply aware of the fact that despite the bad manifesto, she will do what's best for the country. Please tell me what bad things she's thought of, besides bringing up Grammar Schools- which won't affect the working class in any way. Thank you for reading.
Animal Experiments/Testing

Cons No Never it should not be allowed and banned. Animal testing is inhumane and cruel to animals. Just because we want to be safe you feed or inject unknown chemicals in them just to see it is safe for us. Some are just for curiosity! When people "test" if products are safe. they force animals to eat it observe if they live or not if they live to treat, they stay there for the rest of their life since birth until with a little chance being rescued. These days people use dog breed beagles not mice. Nether mice or dog, imagine you are being experimented till death in a lab forever. And imagine how much you hated the white coats in maximum ride!
Animal Experiments/Testing

I think animal testing should be allowed. Animals provide a way for humans to test their new innovative ideas and vaccines. I know that it is inhumane for the animals, however, humans would have to suffer without the animals. You see, society is uneasy about testing a new and experimental treatment first on humans. This possibility of hurting a being we know is conscious and has emotions is TRULY inhumane. Treatments are tested first on animals just so we know that they are safe and effective. Besides, animals also offer models for experimentation that would be impossible to copy in humans. Some species of mice can be genetically modified to be exactly identical so that we can study the effects of two different procedures in mice that will not have different reactions. Without animal experimentation, millions of humans would die and suffer. Many types of lifesaving modern medicine have been created with animal experimentation. When it all boils down, it is either us, or the animals. I choose animals. Also, a VAST majority of all lab experiments use mice, not dogs, cats, are any other household pets. Testing and dogs and such is sometimes approved, but so minuscule that it's hardly even noticeable. I'm not saying that the lives of animals don't matter, I'm saying the lives of humans matter more.
Homosexuality is not a sin

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13). "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24). "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
Personal suicide should be legal.

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate. There are still places on Earth where the act of committing suicide is illegal. I am advocating the position that personal suicide should be legal. I will make a few arguments: 1. It is a completely impractical law to uphold. Indeed, it is the only law I can think of where the 'criminal' can only be punished if they FAIL in their attempt, as you can't imprison a dead person (though I'm sure men have tried). 2. One major reason (possibly the main reason) for instilling laws in the first place is to prevent crime. There is no way somebody who is about to commit suicide will be persuaded not to do so upon hearing there is a law against it. 3. Attempting to prevent suicide is, in itself, cruel and unusual treatment of a human. Many people believe suicide to be an inherently selfish act, but I believe quite the opposite. Forcing someone to endure with a life they've long tired of, merely because you have a personal attachment to them, is the very definition of selfish.
Personal suicide should be legal.

I will first respond to my opponent's case. 1. It's not like we actually punish failed suicide atemptees. We rehabilitate them. That way they can continue as a normal member of society. The reason it is also a crime to successfully commit suicide is because that symbolizes the wrongness of it. The majority of people define right and wrong as what they see in the law books. Giving suicide legal repercussions is the best way to discourage it. It's not the punishment that does the discouraging (because there isn't really a punishment), it's the simple fact that it is law. 2. It is also correct to have suicide as an illegal action because it is wrong. Our government is based off of social contract. Social contract states that all humans have the natural and inalienable right to life. An inalienable right is one that can only be taken away by the one who gives it. In the case of life that is either God, Nature, or Chance. Thus the only entities justified in taking human life is either God, Nature, or Chance. Thus one person cannot rightfully take their own life. Because of this it is perfectly logical that suicide is illegal in a society based on social contract. 3. Suicide is more than selfish. It is a manifestation of one's ignorance. All people go through serious hardship at some point in their life. The only difference between a suicidal person and a regular person is how they deal with these troubles and trials. Those who commit suicide are selfish because they deny the right of every non-suicidal person to say their life is also hard, when in fact everybody has a difficult life. A suicidal person thinks themselves above the rest of the population. You cannot expect the affected family to accept that person's suicide with dignity. They were just severed from a very close relationship and it leaves that person with a gap in their soul. It is like expecting a person to part from their perfectly good limbs without objection. I've proved how it is practical, ideal, and logical to make suicide in any way illegal. Including personal suicide (whatever that is). Thus the only practical, ideal, and logical choice in this debate is the negative. Thank You.
The fallen (from transformers 2) can defeat anyone

Introduction: This is my second debate. Therefore, I apologise for not properly conducting the debate. I am sorry that I left some details out. I allowed you to choose where the battle would start. Since you did not choose the setting, I did it for you (although the setting is regardless considering the abilities of our characters). Both characters are aware of their opponent's abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. AGAIN! The fallen was not at his prime in Transformers 2, allowing an Optimus Prime fused with Jetfire's parts to defeat him. I am fully aware of the fact Superman can defeat Optimus Prime. Scenario 1: The Fallen does not need to open portals although he is capable of doing so. I apologise for my ignorance of Krypton. Scenario 2: I was not aware Superman draws his power from the Sun. The Fallen does not need to force Superman into entering a portal, he simply needs to surround Superman with portals, slowly starving him of his power source, eventually killing him.
The fallen (from transformers 2) can defeat anyone

The Fallen is an enemy like no other. 1) Half of Superman's abilities are useless in a fight with the Fallen. His super-speed, heat-vision, and freezing-breath are no longer of value due to the Fallen's impressive tolerance to temperature and his ability to teleport (and hide in different universes). Their matched abilities is flight. Superman's only advantage is he has a higher degree of invulnerability though when the Fallen can take them to Krypton. The Fallen only weakness is his weak armor under his torso. I don't know how strong Superman is but the Fallen can throw a 2.5 ton pyramid block as if it was a rock. 2) Scenario 1: At any time, the Fallen can teleport to Krypton, acquire a decent amount of Kryptonite, teleport inside Superman's body, and watch him die. Scenario 2: He could open a space bridge to teleport Superman to Krypton, leaving him as powerless a normal human being.
The fallen (from transformers 2) can defeat anyone

Ohai!My opponent and I are to engage in a one-on-one battle between any two characters throughout fiction and non-fiction (or at least I think that's what's happening here...)I will be using Superman (Earth-One), also known as Pre-Crisis Superman.While not as powerful as Superman Prime (who is basically a God and thus violates the only stipulation my opponent made in round one) he is still completely ridiculous power wise.Here are some sources:My opponent has selected The Fallen, aka Megatronus Primehttp://tfwiki.net...Superman (Earth-One)http://dc.wikia.com...(Earth-One)Let's go.
The fallen (from transformers 2) can defeat anyone

Rule 1: You can pick your character (you cannot chose God) but only one character Rue 2: You choose where the battle takes place Rule 3: The definition of defeat is to render someone ineffective Rule 4: The fallen is at his prime. In the movie, he wasn't fully powered because he was sitting for over 15 thousand years and the energon harvester was feeding him for less than 2 minutes. Rule 5: If you forfeit a round, you lose.
CoD is starting to lose what made it great.

Contention 1: Versions Since there are many version of COD and you have not been specific it if you believe that some of them are lacking what they used to have that does not mean that they are all lacking it. You could simply play another COD. To assume that all of the different version of Call Of Duty are bad is simply false. Contention 2: Features There are many different versions of COD so I will zoom in on why Advanced Warefare is epic for this contention. In advanced warefare you can double jump, you have access to a huge variety of guns. You have the online options. You can edit custom guns to make over 100,000 different combinations. Contention 3: Lack Of choice Since there aren't many games out for the PS4 and XBOX ONE Call Of Duty is superior to many of the alternative options and due to the few game options Call of Duty remains one of your only options. Call of Duty is epic because it is the best game for Xbox One. FIFA 16 is a game that is now repetitive and boring. It is almost identical to FIFA 15 and people are forced to now buy a new version of FIFA so that they can do faster slide tackles. This is ridiculous. In GTA V many parents do not allow their children to play this game due to the sexual content, drug usage, alchol usage and extreme violence and blood. In COD, there is shooting, there are many different options. You can play it online or offline, you can go slit screen unlike GTA, Titanfall and Destiny. There are no other options that compare to Call of duty. Rebuttal 1: Concession I cannot respond to a concession but in this rebuttal I will merely highlight the multiple concessions in the Pro's very short first round." I am a longtime fan of Call of Duty on the Xbox. " Concession. " I thought it was awesome and still think it's awesome. " Concession. Rebuttal 2: Subjectivity My opponent's argument is entirely based on subjectivity. I will now point out all of the subjective content in my opponent's round. " I believe that the series started to go downhill " Subjective. "i believe that in order for Call of Duty to be great again," Subjective.
CoD is starting to lose what made it great.

I am a longtime fan of Call of Duty on the Xbox. I remember paying it with my friends and we loved everything about it. I thought it was awesome and still think it's awesome. However, I believe that the series started to go downhill when Actvision started moving the series into the future, such as Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3. i believe that in order for Call of Duty to be great again, it needs to go backwards, into the past. they should explore eras that have never been though of much, like the Korean war.
THB, the age for smoking should be put down to 16 in the UK.

As your forfeited the last round, I will give you a few facts to conclude my debate. 1. A single cigarette contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. 2. About 69% of smokers want to quit completely. 3. Exposure to Secondhand smoke causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year in the U.S. alone. 4. Exposure to Secondhand smoke causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year in the U.S. alone. 5. Over 30% of cancer could be prevented by avoiding tobacco and alcohol, having a healthy diet and physical activity. 6. Study after study has found that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. 7. 8.6 million people in the U.S. live with a serious illness caused by smoking. 8. Smoking makes your hair turn gray faster, a study found. 9. Smoking makes the risk of a heart attack 200% to 400% greater than that of nonsmokers. 10. Cigar and pipe smoking is every bit as dangerous as cigarette smoking, and possibly even more dangerous. 11. Smoking makes breasts sag faster than normal by breaking down a protein in the skin called elastin, which gives youthful skin its elastic appearance and supports the breast. Source: http://www.factslides.com...
THB, the age for smoking should be put down to 16 in the UK.

What numerous studies? You have no proof that "numerous studies" have been put to the cause. Smoke is harmful, second hand smoking is realising smoke. And also real studies say that it's harmful: http://www.webmd.boots.com... 18 is an age when you can get a lot of privileges including, your are no longer adopted, you can legally buy and drink alcohol, you can even apply for a licence to sell alcohol, you can join the armed forces without your parents' permission, you can make legal contracts in your own right, buy or see 18-rated films, buy fireworks, get a commercial pilot's licence, place a bet or work in a betting shop, get married without your parents' permission, donate your body to science or anatomical study, donate your body organs without your parents' permission, vote in political elections, become a Member of Parliament, a local councillor or a local mayor, get tattoos, buy or hire a crossbow, you can buy a (knife blade, razor, axe or anything else with a blade or which has a sharp point.) And finally smoke. So you see, you get a lot of responsibility at the age of 18. So it is only wise to smoke with all these other things at 18. Another reason, according to the western world governments, why the age is 18, is because it's harder to identify a young smoker if they claim to be a 16 year old, then a 18 year old.
THB, the age for smoking should be put down to 16 in the UK.

My family and I are highly against smoking, and always have been. Not only can it harm and scar you for life, it's life threatening and addictive too. Yet all this advice is going around, people will still smoke and, studies say, die 10 years early. 1# Health As I said in my introduction, smoking has life threatening symptoms, these include: -Cancer -chest pain -shortness of breath -persistent cough -coughing up blood -frequent colds and upper respiratory infections -persistent hoarseness -difficulty or pain on swallowing -change in exercise capacity -sudden weakness on one side of the face or body; or difficulty speaking -leg pain while walking that goes away when at rest -unexplained weight loss -persistent abdominal pain -blood in the urine Every cigarette you take reduces your life span by 11 minutes. Also, a smoking causes 1 in 5 death in the western world. 2# Friends and Family Smoking around Friends and Family is called second hand smoking; around 3,000 non-smokers die from lung cancer a year, and tens of thousands non-smokers die from heart disease. Millions of children in their own home breath second hand smoke, it is especially dangerous for children as they have developing lungs. 3#Money 25,792 pounds is the price you would pay if you smoked from eighteen to eighty, a small car or small property could be bought for that price. Even though e-cigarette are supposed to be the alternative, they are still holding a fare amount of nicotine. If you smoke half a pack per day, that means you're spending between 155 to 230 pounds per month for smokes. If you switch to blue e-cigarettes, it'll cost you somewhere between 69.95 and 89.95 pounds for a rechargeable kit that includes a five-pack of flavour cartridges. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ That's the conclusion to my points, in the next round I will be arguing about why it is not a good idea to lower the age limit to 16, as had been before, but changed in recent years. Thank you for reading my argument, and I hope you will also have a good one.
You Choose the Debate: 5 Topics

To defend my opponents attack against my rebuttal one. "Distributing the five in this problem is a form of reasoning. If one reasons them self into a wrong answer, the steps they use are the problem. If both S1 and S2 reason in the same fashion, then they should make the same mistake. " They make a similar mistake as each other and it doesn't have to be the exact same. Consider two people S1 and S2, They both are epistemic peers, and they know the same meaning of the word "pie". They both like it so much that they both say the word at least 3 times every hour. Does this mean they say "pie" at the exact same moment? No, it does not. epistemic peers aren't thinking the same thing at the same moment but rather, they have the same reasoning to say "pie" 3 times every hour. They are two people, with two "trains of thought", they think alike but they aren't a mimic of each other. Same with the math problem (x+5)5=(2x+3)5, S1 S2 They can make the same mistake of distributing the 5 at least once every time it is in a math problem. Does it have to happen with the same 5? No, it can be any 5 and they will be epistemic peers. Against my opponents attack on my rebuttal two: My opponent has forgot that they are epistemic peers and so has not come up with any real argument to consider a weighing mechanism against this. If you read in my round two "Peer pressure is a factor in everyone life. S1 and S2 have been friends since grade school. They are epistemic peers. Both of them are elected into the U. S. House of representatives. They both are liberal people. " So S1 and S2 may have the same reasoning. and the same evidence of both sides of a political topic and they both personally agree about all political issues, however they both also agree to give in to peer pressure in the region they represent, so they can stay in office. the definition of epistemic peers does not include the individuals to have the same emotional stimuli since they don't have their lives don't 100% mimic each other, but rather they have a similar set of mind. S1 represents a conservative region and disagrees with S2 simply because he represents a liberal region and gives in to that peer pressure. They have the same reasoning of giving in to peer pressure, same evidence of both sides of a political topic, same age, experience. They are still epistemic peers and are disagreeing. If you believe either of the two situations to be a possibility of epistemic peers, just one, I win this round and you should both CON because one example completely proves "Disagreements between Epistemic Peers are impossible. " false.
You Choose the Debate: 5 Topics

-------------------------------- Against argument one If S1 and S2 reason through the problem in the exact same way, they would make the exact same mistake. My opponent says, "they can have to same reasoning but have different moments of when such mistakes occur. example : (x+5)5=(2x+3)5 They could have an error of distributing the five on one side different from each other and therefore could still have a different answer from each other" Distributing the five in this problem is a form of reasoning. If one reasons themself into a wrong answer, the steps they use are the problem. If both S1 and S2 reason in the same fashion, then they should make the same mistake. -------------------------------- Against argument two My opponent once again forgets that S1 and S2 must have the same exact information about a topic before they are considered epistemic peers. If he supplies them with "different peer pressure" then they do not have the same knowledge base. If S1 has more (harder evidence, or anymore than etc) knowledge than S2, then S1 is S2's epistemic superior. If S1 has less (more inferior, or fewer etc) knowledge than S2, then S1 is S2's epistemic inferior. Simply: If S1 and S2 have different knowledge about a topic, they are not epistemic peers (for they don't share the same knowledge base). ---------------------------------------- Conclusion My opponent continues to make the mistake of not applying the same ability to reason and the same knowledge base to both S1 and S2 so as to make them Epistemic Peers. Regards, Vi Veri
You Choose the Debate: 5 Topics

My opponent points out that S1 and S2 have the same rationality and tries to use this against my case, but if you look towards my opponent's attacks on my case, they still leave out the possibility of a disagreement. on my opponents attack against my rebuttal 1: If both of them were to make a mistake at the same time. they could still have a different answer from each other. they can have to same reasoning but have different moments of when such mistakes occur. example : (x+5)5=(2x+3)5 They could have an error of distributing the five on one side different from each other and therefore could still have a different answer from each other, and may disagree with each other when both of them don't realize they both made a mistake. They can make mistakes at different parts of the problem when it is similar. They are two minds that think alike. Not, minds that are exactly the same and think the same every minute. For my opponent's attack against my rebbutal 2: my opponentforgets that i provide different peer pressure against the epistemic peers. If they both have the same response to the stimuli, which is to listen and do what they want so they can stay in office, but have different stimuli from each other, they will still disagree with each other.