BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
animal testing.

Animals are living things and react to things so if we test on them we will have an idea on how we will react. They are also good models because, you will see on the link you provided on your previous argument, mice are 98% similar to humans. And apes share 99% of there DNA with humans. The way animals in labs are treated is pretty unfourtanate. But we don't need to ban it, we just need to make stricter rules, such as to give the animals anesthesia when doing painful experiments, and they have to eat a decent amount. In reality, animals and humans aren't equal. They are weaker, and a death of an animal that would be dead anyway can't be more important then the death of a human. More animals die due to slaughter houses (99% of animal tests are caused by farmers, 1% is scientists. Also, animals will survive longer throughout the experiment. Humans are more likely to die before it's even half over. My source: http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr... Animal testing also improves human health, ensures safety of drugs, and scientists test animals because they are the closest thing they can find to humans: http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk... Testing humans would not be as successfull, humans would find a way to break out. Humans have thumbs, brains, and more, so they would find a method on getting out. (Ex: Bust the bars, savotage the security cameras, pick the locks.) and, no one would want to do it. Also, tell me who you'd rather risk: A. Rats B. Your family.
animal testing.

The 4 main reasons we use animals in testing are: 1. To advance scientific understanding 2. As models to study deisieses 3. To Develop and test potential for of treatment 4. To protect the safety of people, animals and the environment You can see the descriptions of these reasons here: http://www.animalresearch.info... Animal testing is very successfull and neccessary. No one wants animals to be treated badly, but would you rather have your loved one die? Insulin was tested on animals, and that saves lives every day. Scientists even fear that if animal testing becomes illegal, medical research will be stopped entirely. With the erosion of antibiotic effectiveness a real possibility, it is essential that we use every tool we have to a dress the medical threats facing our civilization. You can read about it here: http://newsciencejournalism.com... And here is another article that proves my point perfectly, if you'll take the time to read it: http://m.huffpost.com...
animal testing.

I think animal testing needs to be abolished. First of all, symptom between human and animal can be different. For example the pregnant who took'thalidomide' birthed deformed child. Also, there are 30,00 diseases that people suffer from, but from among those, only 1.16 percent of illnesses are showing the same symptom. Secondly, animal is an organism. Just for people's life, annually 5 hundred million animals die. Many of you guys will know about the Germany's Holocaust. I don't think there is difference about imperialism's Holocaust and animal testing. Finally, we can't say every animal testing is fair. There are 8,000 different natural ways to check the safety of cosmetics, but cosmetic companies are just doing animal testing because it's cheap and easy to do. I guess it's not fair to do animal abusing called "ANIMAL TEST".
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.Romantic love cannot be solely based on a physical relationship. Though, it"s included as a strong part of it. Just as that strong emotional bond is solely towards the other individual, the physical desires should be solely, and just as strong if its true romantic love. The desires for others should be diminutive, or even nonexistent. 2.I agree with the fact that many do so, though in the case of romantic love the same thing cannot be shared with another person. When another romantic loved one passes on, yes people settle and share their lives with someone else, but it is no longer the romantic love they had with their original partner. 3.Yes, in a relationship like that, each individual is surely cared for. One person can care for a great multitude of people, but the same level of affection, or "love" in marital relationship cannot be equal. Romantic love would be to love a person in their entirety, not parts of one person, then the rest in another. 4.I"m saying that "true" love, or "romantic" love, is solely between two people. That in the case of true love, that the sole other individual is found equally matched in intense emotional, spiritual, and physical levels of it. 5.Perhaps not lost entirely. Like I stated previously, you can care for a great deal of people, but romantic love is only found in monogamous love. I"m stating that you can be in a relationship, and care for the other person, but then to fall romantically in love with another outside of the relationship; one would leave who they"re currently with to be with their true love. 6.I agree, but with that entire statement, romantic love is not present. If this love is true, there would be no need to satisfy, or find caring from another, and to be with them also.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.You saying there is no way to be romantically in love solely on a physical level is what I"m trying to say. Someone can be physically attracted to multiple people at once, but being physically attracted to someone doesn"t mean they feel all the same emotions that come with romantic love. 2.There are many instances where when a spouse dies or if the relationship ends, that person may never find love again. But more often than not, people move on and find someone else eventually. That doesn"t mean they"ve forgotten about their previous relationship, but they have enough room in their heart to keep their departed one with them but also fall in love with someone new. 3.While every relationship is different, in the scenario of a polygamist marriage each relationship might not be equal, but there is love in each relationship. The central spouse between them does love each of them while it may not be exactly the same because people are different. 4.I do not understand what you are trying to say about "true love." 5.You"ve agreed with my statement about being in a monogamous relationship but you say that people leave their relationships because they develop feelings for another person. But if they develop feelings for another does that mean they have lost those feelings for their current partner? 6.Because of the monogamous standard in relationships, there are many cases of adulatory or cheating within relationships because a partner has developed feelings toward someone outside of their relationship. In that case, the partner continues their present relationship because they still love their partner but also begin a new "secret" relationship with the other person because they"ve begun to also care for this new person.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.I agree with your definition of romantic love. 2.I disagree with your opinion that sexual attraction is excluded in romantic love. This intense feeling should be in all senses: physical, spiritual, let alone emotional. There is no way to be romantically in love solely on a physical level either. 3.I disagree that if its romantic true love, then if a spouse departs, that place may never be replaced in that person"s heart. If it is true, no one else should be able to take that place. 4.I agree with your definition of polygamy. 5.I disagree with your statement that love between multiple individuals can be equal. In a polygamist relationship not every person can be equally cared for because true love is between two individuals. 6.I agree with the statement that society has created a standard to be in a monogamous relationship, but disagree that feelings outside the relationship are wrong. To engage with multiple people would be wrong, but to leave one, for feelings for another happens all the time. 7.There for it is impossible to be romantically in love with multiple people at one time. Non-controversial: Premises 1, and 4 are non-controversial. I agree with your definitions. Controversial: Premises 2, 3, 5, and 6 are controversial because I"ve disagreed with all those you have stated.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.Romantic love is being defined as intense feelings of affection towards another person, not to be confused with familial love or platonic love between friends. 2.Sexual attraction is not included with this definition as many romantic relationships are not built upon solely this aspect. 3.In the case of a marriage where one spouse dies, the living spouse may eventually begin a new relationship and marry someone else. That does not mean that person no longer loves their former spouse even though they"ve fallen in love with someone else. 4.The definition of polygamy is a marriage that includes more than two partners. 5.Many religions include polygamist marriages and in a polygamous marriage where multiple people are married to the same person, each spouse is treated and loved equally. 6.Society has determined that it is the standard to be in a monogamous relationship, so any person"s feelings of romantic emotions outside of their current relationship are deemed wrong. 7. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at a time. Non-controversial: Premises 1, 2, and 4 are non-controversial because they are definitions. Premise 5 is an example of a polygamist marriage. Controversial: Premise 3 is a scenario of a possible outcome of a relationship but might not always be the case and premise 6 is my own opinion on the subject and may be disagreed with.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.I agree with your definition of romantic love. 2.This intense feeling should be in all senses: physical, spiritual, let alone emotional within a relationship. 3.I disagree that if its romantic true love, then if a spouse departs, that place may never be replaced in that person"s heart. If it is true, no one else should be able to take that place. But if it wasn"t as true, after the spouse is gone that person"s love may be diminished where they"ll be able to find their true love. 4.I agree with your definition of polygamy. 5.I still disagree with your statement that love between multiple individuals can be deemed romantic love. Love between any more than two individuals cannot possibly be cared for enough to the point of calling it real romantic love. 6.I agreed that it is possible for someone to develop feelings outside of the relationship but to stay within that same relationship is unnecessary because if the partner from the original relationship was really loved then there would be no reason to have fallen in love with the new person, or if they have really fallen in love with the new person then there is no reason to stay with the original. 7.Therefore, it is impossible to be romantically in love with multiple people at one time.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.Romantic love is being defined as intense feelings of affection towards another person, not to be confused with familial love or platonic love between friends. 2.Though I agree that sexual attraction is an important part of a romantic relationship, I still cannot agree that is included with this definition as many romantic relationships are not built upon solely this aspect and this aspect alone. 3.In the case of a marriage where one spouse dies, the living spouse may eventually begin a new relationship and marry someone else. While it may not be the same love as it was before, it is a different kind of romantic love nonetheless. 4.The definition of polygamy is a marriage that includes more than two partners. 5.Many religions include polygamist marriages and in a polygamous marriage where multiple people are married to the same person, each spouse is loved by the central spouse. While it may not be equal as people are different, it consists of many different romantic loves. 6.You agree that it is possible for someone to develop romantic feelings outside of the relationship but your solution is to end the current relationship to pursue the new one. I disagree with my solution just being able to love both of them at the same time without ending any relationship. 7. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at a time.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.I disagree with the second part of your statement. If it is "true" or romantic love, the need, or interest in another is diluted or otherwise nonexistent as I"ve stated. If there are feelings outside of the relationship, one is more prominent to act upon them. As I"ve stated, the physical level of interest, should be on the same intense level of the emotion. I"ll say yes, there can be an interest, but pales in comparison of romantic love. Same as the emotion, you can share with others, but should be nowhere as close as a romantically loved individual. 2.I agree that caring is still present, but to find romantic love after being with someone else, the individual should realize that it wasn"t real romantic love. Caring deeply for an individual is still possible, but cannot be romantically in love with both, which is the reason in a monogamous relationship that person would leave the one they are with for the other. 3.Agreed, there are things that would be liked about each and there are things that you would not like about each individual. I"m stating a romantic love is to find all those qualities in one person. And yes, each person could be deeply cared for, but the reason to be with more than one person is that they each have qualities that one would like, too often different ones that the other lacks. 4.I had never stated that true love and romantic love were the same thing. True love falls into the category of romantic love. We agreed upon that romantic love is the intense feeling towards another person, why can"t true love have the same intense feelings? I"m stating that romantic love includes intense feelings between two individuals including physical, spiritual, and emotional, not that romantic love is anything less than true love. 5.Agreed, again I never stated that the first individual was ever forgotten about or lost. I"m simply stating that if a person falls romantically in love with someone else, there is no reason to stay with anything less. I"m stating that they belong to the group of people they love, or care for, not intensely love in a romantic way. 6.Because why? They feel bad for leaving their original one? Could they still not remain friends? If they find someone else who they are romantically in love with, would they not be happier with them? If romantic love is much more, then I feel they would just be stringing along their current partner to keep them happy.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at once

1.We"ve agreed that sexual attraction cannot be the only basis for romantic love and I will also agree that it is a very strong part of it. However, I must disagree that it is reserved for only one other person while in a relationship. While two partners in a relationship may act on their sexual feelings with only each other, it does not necessarily prevent either partner from experiencing other sexual feelings for other people outside their relationship even if they don"t act on them. 2.As I"ve stated before, everyone is different and no relationship is the same. But that does not mean they can"t romantically love another person even though the individual feelings may be different. That person may still hold both the love of their former partner and their current one within them. 3.But in a relationship like that it doesn"t mean that the central spouse might only love "parts" of each person. It could be that there are different things about each of that person"s spouses that are unique to each relationship and still are loved wholeheartedly. 4.So you are saying that "true love" and "romantic love" is interchangeable as the same thing, but that goes against our agreed upon definition of what romantic love is. In this case, what you"re saying about true love cannot be the same thing as just romantic love. You"re saying true love is solely between two people as some spiritual thing while our agreed on definition is that romantic love is intense feelings of affection toward another person. It is not necessarily limited to any certain number of people. 5.I don"t believe that person can just drop their feelings for their previous relationship. It was not their choice to lose their partner so it is not a simple matter of their partner not being there anymore and easily moving on to the next person. They may very much still be in love with their former partner but can develop intense feelings for the new person. 6.But in this scenario there could be. One partner could be entirely romantically in love with their current partner but if they meet someone new and their feelings for their current partner haven"t faded, the situation could be presented as the beginning for a polyamorous relationship if it is agreed upon by everyone in the relationship.
Censorship

Not all parents know what they're doing. When a parent is irresponsible, or they leave the room for a second and the kid flips the channel, the Television Network does what the parent doesn't. They censor it, so little Timmy doesn't learn a curse word he shouldn't. As I said earlier, censorship is a very broad topic, and you seem to be focusing very narrowly on the television aspect of it. For example, my example earlier talked about lack of censorship on a billboard.Thank you for the debate, and the interesting topic of argument.
Censorship

I completely agree with Con. Censorship is at times a very annoying and frustrating thing. But that doesn't mean it isn't necassary. Censorship is a very broad topic. Censorship exists in TV, the internet, movies, advertising, you name it. Yeah, sure, it can be annoying for some people; but imagine this.You're walking down the street with your kids and your significant other, in the downtown area where you live. As you're walking you see ads for everything from Ben & Jerry's to Axe Body Spray. But then, you see an ad for some lingerie company, featuring a female model completely topless. Not what you wanted your kids to see, right?The city didn't use censorship to take down the ad, and the photographer's work is what they intended it to be, right?Without censorship, everything from cussing to nudity can be seen anywhere; and in any medium. Everyone sees some form of censored medium on a daily basis.Censorship is the reason that your children don't see model's breasts on a daily basis, and I guaruntee they'd see worse than that without censorhsip.
Americans need to break free from the 2 party corporate trap.

You must clarify what you mean when you say this system "works." Just because we've been doing the same thing for 200 years doesn't mean it has worked as well as it could or well at all. Almost half of eligible voters didn't even vote this past election; a democracy requires full participation by the people to be a democracy. But the corporate elite would rather not fix this problem because if they did, then more people would realize that both parties have been funding the war on terror instead of investing in our own country. The green party goes beyond the progression of just the environment; education, health, and many other things would be addressed that haven't been addressed under the current system. The system is already ineffective because we spend so much on the military instead of rebuilding our infrastructure, education, health, transportation, and everything else that is fucked up; you don't think increasing military spending is complicating our country's progress and well being? A good military is important, but the size of ours is unnecessary.
Americans need to break free from the 2 party corporate trap.

We should not break free of the two party system, for one thing, because it has worked for the last 200 years. There is no need to change a system that works. Second, while the two party system seems to bring about an "us vs. them" attitude towards everything, it balances out. If the two sides of the political spectrum are as extreme as people say that they are, having a republican president elected right after a democrat will actually bring this country into balance. If you really delve into the politics of individuals who believe differently than you do, you'll find that when it comes to the actual issues, we do believe many of the same things. (Source 1) While there are parts of the system that should be changed, having more than two parties would complicate the system, making any positive change ineffective. For instance, if we elect a member of the green party (whos financial investments would likely go mostly to the environment) other parts of the government wouldn't be able to thrive. We would be investing all our resources into solar panels and wind energy, while health care, education, imigration, transportation, etc. would fall to the wayside. Next, multiple parties - contrary to popular belief - would leave little room for discourse. It's an idea that would split the voting power of the people. So let's say that you're really against Trump's proposed budget (source 2); While Trump is president, future democratic nominees have time to flesh out and propose something radically different. A budget that maybe gives less funding for the military, and allocates it toward space exploration, environmental efforts, and education. Because we seem to be electing extreme candidates, it is very likely that our next presidential candidate will be someone who is experienced in economics, and qualified to make positive changes. While a decent military is important, I halfheartedly agree with you that we could be a bit more conservative when it comes to funds for that particular area of government. 1.) https://youtu.be... 2.) https://www.bloomberg.com...
Americans need to break free from the 2 party corporate trap.

The Republican and Democrat parties in America are controlled by corporate elites who pay off politicians and control political decisions through unfair wealth distribution and rigging of electoral processes by suppressing voices that go against their war agenda. We must embrace third parties and open debates so that we don't go too far down this path of unethical behavior and lack of compassion for humanity and the general environment. Imagine the country we could build if we didn't spend as much as we do on the military.