BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal testing

Protecting the human race is very important, to humans. Humans are only a fraction of this shared planet so why are their lives the most important? You say it is the "logical" choice to test on animals. You are going to have to define your terms for me on that point. Also if we are throwing morality out the window then why stop at animals, why not just test on humans? Animals are looked down upon compared to humans so it is more acceptable to test on them, but aren't criminals looked down upon also? Why not test on the wicked who made their illegal choices already? For the claim I made about 92 out of 100 drugs passing on animals end up failing on humans, I stated my source as the Food and Drug administration, or would you like that in MLA format? I also do not understand what you mean by saying conditions in labs are increasing... Animals are born to roam and be free as they had for years before humans messed with them. It doesn't take a "mad scientist" to mistreat animals, and if you think these animals are being treated well in those labs then you are mistaken... After three dogs were forced to ingest a test substance every day for five days at Charles River Laboratories, they experienced labored breathing and a high heart rate. They became cold to the touch, were not able to be aroused and were seen with the test substance in their mouths and on their bodies. One dog died and the other two were euthanized one to two days later. USDA Annual Report of Charles River Laboratories (2005) In a study published in a scientific journal, rats were placed in a swimming pool one at a time, and then, without any warning, an escape-proof wire net was placed over their body, forcing them underwater for 30 seconds at a time to create an experience of "underwater trauma." Neuropsychopharmacology. (2004). 29, 1962""1970. Setting Apart the Affected: The Use of Behavioral Criteria in Animal Models of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. During surgery by unsupervised, inexperienced students at St. Lawrence University, a rabbit was inadequately anesthetized and was sitting up and kicking during the procedure. Surgery on an animal who has not received adequate anesthesia can result in extreme pain and distress. USDA Annual Report of St. Lawrence University (2004) There are hundreds of these cases out there and my sources are there for you to do some research on this portion of the debate.
Animal testing

In this round, I will provide rebuttals to my opponent's arguments.Protecting the human race and increasing their longevity is of the utmost importance. If there is any way that we could save lives or cure diseases and cancer, why would someone not take that chance? Arguing the morality is irrelevant, because it is a logical choice to test animals to cut losses of human lives.Your failure to provide hard evidence to back up your claims is curcial. Without it, you do not have tangible nor empirical evidence to support your claims. It would serve you well to state your sources in the following round, if applicable.Of course they have the right to life, and by all means, allow animals to live. Science is progressing, and conditions for animals in labs is ever increasing. There are not "mad" scientists working in labs to endanger the lives of innocent animals. Testing in laboratories is purely to find ways to fight diseases and eradicate them, to the large benefit of humanity as a whole.Therefore, I have refuted your claims, because you have not provided any tangible or empirical evidence to support them. Animal Testing should be continued, to the benefit of humanity as a whole.
Animal testing

What would it take to make you change your position on this argument? Who are we to say that animals are ok to experiment on, but humans aren't? Who made humans superior to anything? Animals are not capable of speaking or logically communicating their position on the subject (which undoubtedly would be against animal testing, laughing) so the humans take the unopposed initiative to test on helpless, innocent, and unaware creatures who have as much of a right to life as we do. Most drugs passed on animals end up failing on humans anyways. The Food and Drug Administration has reported that 92 out of 100 tests that are successful on animals end up failing on humans. I do not have the data of how many tests that number came from, but when I read 92 out of 100 I immediately picture the hundreds of helpless creatures who lost their lives to "science." Lives that they will never get back.
Should people own pets

I think we should not be allowed to have any specie as a pet. I can accept that some exotic wild animals simply aren't fit to be in a home. Other animals that tend to group in packs (like wolves) shouldn't be kept as pets either. With this out of the way, I will explain why I am not opposed to people having the conventional pets, which are cats and dogs. If you have more specific animals in mind (such as rodents, birds or reptiles) feel free to bring them up, I just don't know that much about them. The concept of family is something very human. Other animals may have similar system of organisation as a species, but not cats and dogs. The mother will be protective of her cubs while they need her to survive, after that, she will have the same behavior towards their children as she has with any other of the species. Personally, I have 3 kitties and I adopted them all because I didn't want to separate their family (mum died in labour) and I doubt they recognise each other as "sisters".
Universal Health Care

My view on Universal Health Care is that it well.... sucks. You look at the the other countries that have it, and well... hasn't worked. In order to see a physician, you must wait sometimes up to 3 months, and by that time you might be very very ill. And also, if it doesn't work, then what? We can't switch back because the gov't got rid of most private insurance companies. Therefore causing us never to reverse it. The other main problem with the universal health care is simply that the quality of the care is terrible. You are no longer a customer, you're just a number on a long list. There's no respect for you or anyone else. In this time of global crisis, we can not afford to damage it more. Taxes will raise, and people will be hurting even more especially middle and high class families. This is a terrible system.
Universal Health Care

Before I begin, I would like to point out that I have only been allowed five minutes to post. Please take this into account when voting on conduct. ======== I do not think that any definitions are necessary. Contention 1: Countries with universal health care tend to have higher quality of life. A detailed study [1] took various factors into account, such as cost of living, freedom and safety. This study was used to determine which countries have the highest quality of life. Of the top ten highest-scoring countries, only one (the United States) does not have universal health care [2]. Contention 2: Universal health care benefits everyone. Sometimes, there are those who are unable to get adequate health care on their own. This is often fatal. Everyone has the right to life; and universal health care can help people claim their rights. It is borderline inhumane to disallow universal health care. Contention 3: Universal health care is cheap. The United States spends 40% more per capita on health care than any other major country, including those with universal health care. It is predicted that instating universal health care would lower annual expenditures by a hundred billion dollars or more. [3] ======== References [1] . http://www.il-ireland.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://cthealth.server101.com...
Non-violent offenders and murderers should be segregated in prison.

I still believe that if people go to prison they should expect it to be rough, the point of prison is to punish for there crimes, even still if thats the case with the fluctuation, theres still the fact that, people who do commit more crimes in prisons, theres already places for them like solitary confinement, and if people who do attemptive robbery (robbery without a gun usually) then they should be in the mix i also believe segregating will just make them more likely to do it again if there not scared, because most of the time there just injuries. Not death.
Non-violent offenders and murderers should be segregated in prison.

Even so. if you divide up the place theres already areas filled up with prisoners, because theres an over population of people in prisons, and if you try to segregate one area of the prison to the other, you would have Murderers in one area (with maybe some few open jail cells with no one), then you have people in another area that are for people like grand theft auto in one area (with possibly a flood of people), Where do you put them? you can no longer put them in the other part with the violent offenders because there segregated. There would need to be an add on of building. For the non violent offenders, considering most crimes are drug related, there would be an overflow.
Non-violent offenders and murderers should be segregated in prison.

No extension would be needed. Just divide up the pace there already is. Keep the violent offenders in one area, and the non violent offenders in another area. It would help keep peace and order, the violent offenders will have the maximum security and guards that they need and the non violent offenders will have the security from the violent ones. violent offenders tend to do violent acts for fun and the non violent offenders would fall victim to that.
Non-violent offenders and murderers should be segregated in prison.

With murderers and non violent offenders in the same area of prison, more conflicts occur. Murderers are there clearly for violent purposes and they have it in them to be more violent. The non violent offenders are in there for some other reason and have no reason to be violent towards anyone. Mixing them together would only cause problems that would not occur if they were not in the same area, like unnecessary fights that violent people get a thrill out of.
imagination comes after extinction for me to rise from the grave

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic corner days rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Earth, proving 4 Days, Not 1Day,1Self,1Earth or 1God that exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- antipodes. Add +0- as One = nothing You see child, I am the night weasel. I slither in the night, awaiting the invention of disco. WHERE IS YOUR TRUMP NOW!!!
imagination comes after extinction for me to rise from the grave

Jobs are evil academia singularities, for the giant space taco has seen a 20% reduction in income tax since 45 billion AD. Earth has four corners, your one-ist thinking fool. 4 corners = square. Potatoes cannot come from squares, only from seperately arranged antipodes you oneist. This was proven in the great SHMOGGLING of '06. (PRAISE THE SHMOGGLER). Cubes=shapeshape=formform=moldmold=clayclay=play-doplay-do= donald trumpDONALD TRUMP!!!!!DOOOONNNNAAAALLLLDDDD.........TTTTTTTRRRRRUUUUUUMMMMMPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
imagination comes after extinction for me to rise from the grave

Beware of the change when your brain is free from induced 'Word World' enslavement - for you could find that the natural "Real World" has been destroyed. Potatoes are the gravy of the human belly button, and as such, you must pay your reverence to purple sausage. Religious singularity and academic singularity = evil. For gene ray is wisest man on earth, as the belly button logic works.
Twilight Is A Horrible Potless Awful Novel!!

What does its being lawful or not have to do with it? Nothing. Once again, Meyer had her charcacters state CLEARLY THAT THOUGH SOME VAMPIRES MAY BE SAFE AND FREINDLY, NOT ALL ARE "VEGETARIANS". Second, pro incorrectly stated that that the series has ruined the vampire reputation. All Twilight has done is unveil a new kind of vampire. And Jacob Black gave Bella the time to come to his wolfy realization on her own time. ". .. potless novel": I guess it is her choice to involve drugs if she wishes. My opponent has me confused as to what the resolution is exactly, so I will follow my side of the posted title of the debate. My opponent has proved that she feels twilight sucks, but no that twilight is a disgrace to vampirekind. She gives little or no evedence to this statement. Vampire is/was: This book allows us to see a new vampire, one with few changes from the begining ones. They are essentially the same. With the above said, vampiric reputations have not been tarnished.
Twilight Is A Horrible Potless Awful Novel!!

Thank You So Much For Replying :] Con Has Completely Avoided My Second Point! And For That "Meyer Did not Emply That Vampires Are Harmless" That May Be True But She Did Not Legially Show ANY Signs Of Violence! In One Of The Books Meyer EMPLIED That The Volturi Took Torist Down To There "Lair" And Sacrifized Them To Themselves. But Never Acually Showed Them, Or Any Type Of Human Harm At All. It Is Said That The Only "Good Vampires Are The "Vegitarians". In Your First Point Your Say "Twilight has done is present a new view, and kind of vampire", And Completely Drawing Away From What The "ORIGINAL" Vampire is/was. Anyways This Is Getting Away From My Point That "Twilight Is A Horrible Potless Awful Novel" It Is Completly Plotless It Seems That Meyer Just Keeps Adding As She Goes! She Says Something That When She Can't Finish It She Just Starts Something New!! Such As There "Werewolfs" She Emplied Nothing About This Than Just Randomly Out Of The Blue "Jacob Black" Tells The Main Character He (Completely Erelivent And Untrue And Effensive) Back Story, Seems Really Unplanned To Me. Thank You :] I Wait For Your Reply.
Twilight Is A Horrible Potless Awful Novel!!

I appreciate this debate challenge, and look forward to getting some insight from the other side of this topic, while presenting my side. For the sake of this debate, I will assume vampires are real, thus allowing us to examine the possibility of "vegetarian vampires". I will address my side, then move to my opponents statements. Let us look at a dew things, including what Twilight has done to society, vegetarian vampires, and some of the finer points of the Twilight series. 1. What has Twilight done for society? Twilight does not say "all vampires are harmless to humans", just something to note. The most Twilight has done is present a new view, and kind of vampire. The book explains a few times that it depends on a few things:the lifestyle they know and live, and hunger. Most people who are new to a subject will tend to make assumptions about that topic. That said, Meyer may have resaerched the idea more for the event in Eclipse, and came to a conclusion that it was possible. 2. We can assume, that because we cannot examine vampires, that Meyer's theory of safe vegetarian vampires will work out as it did in the books.
Twilight Is A Horrible Potless Awful Novel!!

Today It Has Come To Me Attention That The Novel The "Twilight Saga" Has Ruin The Reputation Of Vampires. Don't Get Me Wrong I'm Not Saying That Vampires Are Real They Could Or Could Not Be. This Has Made It Seem vampires Are Harmless To Human, Witch My Opinion Is Completely Moronic! If You Saw A Cute Grizzly Bear You Wouldn't Come Up And Hug It Now Would You?! Moving On To The Plot Of This Horrible "Novel" It Had Not Just Offended The Vampire History But Yet Greek Mythology And Werewolf History And Too Some Account Natives. This Book Is Plot Less And Completely Predictable, In Most Accounts Stephenie Meyer Contradicts Herself, For Example In The First Book (Twilight) She Clearly States That "Vampires Can NOT Have Children" And Yet (SPOILER!!) In The Fourth Book (Breaking Dawn) The Two Main Characters Have "Intercourse" With Each other The Male Being A Vampire An The Female Being Human, She Produced A Immortal Child, Witch Contradicts Her First Statement. Thank You I'm Looking Forwa
Russia's inventions vs. ______'s inventions

1. (Grain harvester)-(Andrei Vlasenko)-(1868): With the help of this invention, much more food could be harvested much faster. This means that larger populations could be supported. Created the reality of a consistently more food. http://in.rbth.com...... 2. (Spaceport)-(Vladimir Barmin)-(1950s): Site for launching and receiving spacecraft. Allows rovers, rockets and satellites to be launched into space. In reality, this is the first and greatest step to space. http://en.wikipedia.org...... 3. (Graphene)-(Andre Geim/Konstantin Novoselov)-(2010): The two inventors received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 for this unprecedented step in nanotechnology. Graphene is a carbon sheet that is literally one atom thick, but it is considered the lightest and strongest material on the planet (100 times stronger than steel). Graphene is also very versatile and may lead to the creation of bendable TV/phone screens. It can also be used for ultra filtration because virtually the only compound that can pass through it is water. Also opens a future for very efficient batteries. http://www.graphenea.com...... Thank you for the debate.
Russia's inventions vs. ______'s inventions

(Transformer)-(Pavel Yablochkov)-(1882): Made it possible to safely transmit electricity long distances. http://in.rbth.com... (Petrol Cracking)-(Vladimir Shukhov)-(1891): Allows crude oil to be turned to usable petroleum for cars and other vehicles. http://in.rbth.com... (Synthetic Rubber)-(Sergei Lebedev)-(1913): Used to make tires for cars, aircraft etc. Also used for making seals, insulation and medical devices. http://in.rbth.com...
Russia's inventions vs. ______'s inventions

Then let's begin! As mentioned, I will be using Russian inventions. 1. (Periodic Table)-(Dmitrii Mendeleev)-(1869): First consistent and systematic periodic table. Even predicted where "future" elements would be on the table BEFORE they were actually discovered. http://web.lemoyne.edu... 2. (Helicopter)-(Igor Sikorsky)-(1942): First two-seater helicopter. Considered the "classic design" that has been used for more than 50 years and has accounted for 95% of helicopters built around the world. http://in.rbth.com... 3. (AK-47)-(Mikhail Kalashnikov)-(1949): Changed warfare all around the world. Most produced weapon in history with 75-100 million of these made. Arguably the most effective weapon in history. http://www.popularmechanics.com...
Russia's inventions vs. ______'s inventions

In every round (except the first), my opponent will provide 3 inventions from a particular country and explain why the invention is note worthy. Only one country can be chosen, for example, all of the inventions that I will list must be from Russia/by a Russian. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2-5: 3 inventions each and an explanation of why it is worthy of mentioning. The format will be this: (Name of Invention)-(Name of inventor)-(Year it was invented): (Explanation) All inventions must be from years: 1850-present Voters will decide which inventions were the best/most significant.
It's the church of Christ, or you stand lost.

You would do well my dear friend to study the New Testament. Mark 16:17-18 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. This verse is referring to the Apostles and those who the Apostles gave the gifts they received to help spread the word. There are no more speaking in tongues, miracles and instantaneously healing of the sick. These gifts ceased when the Apostles died, as they were simply a tool to help spread the word, but now we have the Bible. 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. This will explain Mark 9-20 to you, http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org... Your rambling and cherry picking shows me that you are a very confused individual with respect to biblical knowledge. I have no problem with cherry picking as long as what your picking is consistently cherries, but in your case you're picking a variety of fruits, meaning you make no sense on what you're implying. A good tree will produce good fruit, refers to a Christian doing things for God almighty by letting their light shine, doing the best you can and of course, God knows we will make mistakes, that's why when we do we ask for his forgiveness and try harder. This illustration is simply showing that a person who obeys God's command will produce good fruit, meaning good deeds, such as saving souls, being Christlike in all that they do. I recommend a good study in hermeneutics, as this will help you comprehend what's actually being said. http://school.wvbs.org... It's clear that you cannot prove that the church of Christ isn't what the bible claims it to be, thus you fail in your endeavor, as I knew you would, as the bible is God's word, and you are a mere man.
It's the church of Christ, or you stand lost.

Romans 16:16, Acts 2:38-47. The church of Christ was established on the day of Pentecost in AD 30 in Jerusalem. No other church was established other than the church of Christ, as there's only one faith, meaning one doctrine. Ephesians 4:5-6 King James Version (KJV) 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. We are no longer in the Old Testament, as for why it's now called a New Testament, as this is the Christian era. Jesus built his church as he states, I will build "my church", which is singular. Matthew 16:18. The only way you can be in the body of Christ, his church is to be baptized, immersed, Acts 2;38, Mark16:16. To be in the church of the Bible means one must teach and worship according to the New Testament pattern set forth by the Apostles. We read this about the first church of Christ: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). CONCLUSION; The bible clearly shows one doctrine, which is the only doctrine that the church of Christ adheres to, thus making it the one and only true church of the bible which one must be in to be worshipping in spirit and in truth.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

Resolution: Abortion should remain legal in the United States No semantics No intentional fallacies No ad hom Dropped arguments are considered concessions Shared Burden of proof(with a wee bit more on him but not much) I challenge you ULTIMATESKEPTIC! :) I hope we have a good discussion. Affirmative posts first round, but only concludes last round. Sources can be provided in comments if each debater wishes! :)