BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Testing Should be Banned

With that being said, I believe the fundamental nature of animal testing is acceptable. To begin, your original premise posits that animal testing is fundamentally immoral because we have not been given consent by said animals to be used. As of yet, there seems to be no way of obtaining consent from a plethora of animals. While it is true that we can observe and predict the behaviors and reactions of certain animals and species different than us (for example, we can generally tell when animals are happy/sad/angry etc. ), this premise relies on the notion that all animals are able to give consent. However, while we do have swaths of knowledge about animal behavior available to us, we have yet to encounter animals with the complicated executive capabilities of humans, so comparing humans to all other animals can't possibly be a fair comparison because humans are unlike all other animals in a variety of quantifiable ways. For example, out of all of the animals studied and observed by humans, it is extremely rare to establish that other animals have theory of mind, the ability to complexly understand the emotions, desires, actions, etc. of themselves and others around them. Even in animals that have the potential to develop theory of mind, it is often at rudimentary levels and often disputed by other researchers regarding the significance of the study's findings. Another reason animal testing isn't inherently immoral is because any alternative would stunt the progress and development of new medicines, treatments, vaccinations, etc. For example, banning animal testing would either 1) extend to all humans, because, as you suggested, they're animals too or 2) not place restrictions on human testing. In the case of the second instance, you must then concede that humans are uniquely distinct from other animals, in which case we are back to the first point I suggested. Animal testing has helped to accelerate medical and scientific advents for both domesticated pets and for humans. Leapfrogging off of my previous point, if you extend a ban on animal testing, you must then establish if it is ethical to do social experiments or milder forms of testing on those same animals. If your response is no, then we are stuck in the situation I previously described in which you must subjectively arbitrate which procedures and which animals are acceptable to test. If your answer is none of them, then the result of that policy would be a cessation of the mounds of scientific value obtained from testing on animals, even as simple as social and behavioral experiments. Overall, I believe animal testing is not only ethical, but ought to be encouraged for the purposes of scientific and medical advents and because, as I pointed out earlier, any concrete restrictions placed on animal testing will lead to a slippery slope that is inevitably invalidated.
Animal Testing Should be Banned

I hope this comes to a good debate and I hope others will enjoy. I will start: (Please keep in mind that by "we", I mean us pros who support banning Animal Testing) When in the course of human-animal related events, it becomes common for the human to ignore the right of animals and conduct testing against them with the excuse of better health and life for the human. We(pros) are very disappointed that we humans are treating them cruelly, having a high probability of abusing them to death. We hold these truths to be obvious, that animal and human should be treated equally. Humans are animals, thus there is no difference between humans and all the animals out in the world. Here is where my point comes in. If humans are animals, then why should we be testing animals? Are we assuming that we are the priority? Not just me, but so many people out there in the world believe that other animals have justice and their rights. Until now, animals had to remain silent, but with the long history of mistreatment by humans, it is now time that the world finds out what has been going on. " We"ve been endangering the whole wild and outdoor species. " We never negotiated or discussed with animals about animal testing. Even after all of this cruel animal testing, we shared how animals would feel like to relevant communities and medical institutions. However, our complaints were not accepted, and testing is still getting conducted. We must now announce that we are declaring the independence from animal testing. I, therefore declare that animals have the right to go about peacefully in their daily lives! We are all living creatures that can feel pain and suffering! Animals Testing should, therefore, be banned!
The Greater Majority of Christians WILL NOT BE Kings and Priests

<.< 2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV) Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Give by heart, or lovingly....I'm not trying to deceive anyone, I thought you knew scripture like the back of your hand, so I didn't put the quote in. So this is not 'FALSE in its entireity" (entirety) at all...but has some backing by scripture. Back to the topic: The Majority of Christians no matter the denomination will go to heaven even if they have different denominations, the only thing they need is faith in Jesus, that's it Ephesians 2:8-9 says: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man should boast."
The Greater Majority of Christians WILL NOT BE Kings and Priests

Hello fellow follower, I too am a non-denominational Christian, I just follow the word of God and go to a simple church each Sunday. I take the stance that every denomination that believes Jesus Christ is our Lord, Savior, and puts their full trust and life in his hands are saved based on this bible verse I read every morning. Romans 10:9-10; "9)If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10) For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." This verse shows that any one person who does this shall be saved. For Mormons I can't be so sure, they believe Jesus is one of many Gods and not the one true savior, perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I have read. I hope we can have a good debate, one Christian to another, may the holy spirit aid us.
should barack obama be able to spy on us

I agree that ron paul might of argue that the war on Drugs isn't worth it. But is that the problem no the problem is that the us is falling down if you hear on the news you will hear the percent of dollar changes and that might be nothing to you right now but that will change a lot of future americans and that means trouble and as i mention that the us is changing there will be more like china rulling the us, fema camps and so many more but many americans dont want us to face these ways but its to late because americans voted for obama even chuck norris says do not vote for obama but because we did its too late lets just vote for ron paul cause he probally got a plan to get back american freedom. Who knows what laws ron paul might write he might make many unfair laws in the past disappear and make us have more fair laws http://www.youtube.com...
should barack obama be able to spy on us

too bad the us will lose is money value in fact the dollar dropped to 90 % and were already seeing changes like smaller portion sizes long time ago hamburgers and cheeseburgers were big and now when you look look at them you will see smaller sizes and untasty buns but im not done if you look at the stores you will find smaller snacks for example a bag of takis will be like 1.29 while long time ago a big bag of takis will be 98 plus gas prices increaased and already 50% of Americans are in dept. But this can be reversed kick obama out and let Ron paul be president http://www.youtube.com...
THW Abolish Age Restriction in SNS

Children have vulnerable minds so they are manipulated easily by SNS as they are young; However, we don't have to restrict using SNS because they can take advantage of SNS to distinguish right from wrong and think about many topics critically. In addition, their parents can teach them how to use SNS correctly. And children learn bad words from not only SNS but also people from around them, for example their friends. From the above, i disagree with the abolish age restriction in SNS.
Facebook has brought about effective communication

First of all, I would like to counter Pro's points:-Facebook can cause people to be less sociable and isolating themselves from the societyI would like Con to present evidence to back up his claim. Otherwise, this is nothing but baseless assumption. Con also need to show how relevant this point is to his resolution, as we are not debating about whether Facebook is good or harmful. -Facebook causes addiction, which could lead to social and health problemsSame as above. -Facebook is a medium to spread false informationsIt can be used to do so, but so can any other medium. -Facebook can cause havoc (countries like china and vietnam block facebook)This is not much different to the third point. China is notorious for censoring its media so I don't think China's policy could be used to prove that Facebook is bad. And again, we are not debating about whether Facebook is good or harmful. I also want to remind Con that arguments posted in the Comments section does not count. Now it's my turn to present my arguments:Through Facebook, you can hear about your friends and relatives daily no matter how far away they are. The news is updated regularly, allowing you to know up to the smallest details of their lives: the pictures they take, the place they go, the activities they are participating, . .. (of course you know these information because they are willing to share, it's not stalking). This makes you and your friends/family understand each other better.
Unwelcome immigrants from the United States should be shot

Sorry. I really didn't think much of the paragraph about squirrels. The reference to "black ones" was especially confusing, as I thought you were talking about African Americans. Anyways, I don't think that shooting would be the solution. For one thing, the UK has "what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... There wouldn't be any guns with which to shoot these unwelcome immigrants. Furthermore, they're only up to a foot long, and very agile, so it would take numerous bullets just to hit one of them. Now, why not just let the grey squirrels displace the red squirrels? According to Darwin, with this competition, the strongest, most adapted squirrels will survive. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Obviously, the grey squirrels are more adapted than the red squirrels. So, all you have to do is think about it as the red squirrels going through extremely quick natural selection into the incredibly adaptive grey squirrels. Furthermore, I reiterate that the Europeans displaced and destroyed the Native Americans when they first came to America. It's only fitting that the Europeans find their squirrels being displaced and displaced by American squirrels in much the same way. The Native Americans gave the Europeans some land; they wanted more. The Europeans destroyed and industrialized much of the countryside, while the Native Americans were opposed. The Europeans spread horrible diseases to the Native Americans. The Europeans were more aggressive than the Native Americans. So, the Europeans are getting their just desserts. They should not shoot the grey squirrels, because that would interfere with Darwin's natural selection, and they're just suffering their own just desserts. Thank you.
Unwelcome immigrants from the United States should be shot

Unfortunately, it would appear that my attempt at satire was not an unmitigated success. Just to clarify, the subject of this debate is squirrels, not people! Though (deliberately) not immediately obvious, the "immigrants" I refereed to were the gray squirrels that were imported into England from North America in the 19th Century and which have since largely displaced the native red squirrels here. Please be assured, therefore, that I used the words "pests" and "vermin" in their literal sense and the "black ones" I mentioned are the darker variety of the North American squirrel that have more testosterone and are even more aggressive than the regular greys (as detailed in my source). I sincerely regret the fact that I gave the impression that I was being abusive! As a final word of explanation: there was, of course, a subtext to this mode of argument - that being that there is a very fine line between patriotism and nationalism and some leaders exploit people's loyalty and love of their country to promote all manner of obscure and nefarious causes, labelling people who disagree with them as unpatriotic or even traitors. Moving on, in response to Mongeese's arguments, I fully agree with all his points. For the record, citizens of the United States are always more than welcome in England - America has been our closest ally in modern times and this point was widely echoed yesterday during the 60th anniversary of D-Day ceremonial events in Normandy at which President Obama and the Prince of Wales were both in attendance. . http://edition.cnn.com... Just to further clarify, most English people identify themselves culturally more with Americans than they do with continental Europeans, even though a vast ocean separates us rather than the mere 26 miles of water that lies between England and France. To conclude this round I would like to return to topic of the debate and reiterate that the problems gray squirrels are causing in England are intolerable and that they must be culled in order to prevent further destruction to the country's flora and fauna. Thank you.
Unwelcome immigrants from the United States should be shot

Unwelcome immigrants from the United States should not be shot. The UK cannot afford to make such a mistake. They already have their own problems. Muslims are much more of a threat to them right now. They shouldn't add angry Americans to their growing troubles. America has nuclear bombs. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org... America also has the world's most powerful military. http://www.lonympics.co.uk... "The world's biggest economy and by far in terms of spending and power the worlds strongest army, the most powerful democracy, and the media centre of the world, plus in many ways the centre of world diplomacy and foreign relations. This easily makes the USA the worlds most powerful country." The United States has already defeated England in two wars. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... They would no doubt do the same today. Americans believe that their citizens all have the right to life. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..." http://en.wikisource.org... When the UK starts to kill off Americans in Britain, the Americans will declare war on the UK. This war will ultimately make both countries worse off, although UK will suffer much more than America. "Since then they have spread disease, driven much of the indigenous population off their land and shown scant regard for our precious countryside. These Americans tend to be bigger than the locals and they are also very aggressive, especially the black ones." That's funny; that sounds like what the Europeans did when they first encountered America. "Now it's time to say 'enough is enough' and rid our fine country of these unwelcome pests. Prince Charles wants to see these vermin 'eliminated' and I believe the most effective method of achieving this would be to shoot them." Well, Prince Charles would probably not want to see the UK blown up in nuclear waste. "We must act now before it's too late and the decedents of the grey squirrels that our Victorian forefathers imported from the United States completely decimate England's native red squirrels." If you start shooting Americans, and Americans launch nukes on the UK, then both the grey squirrels and the red squirrels will be decimated. Because this shooting plan would have overall negative effects on both America and the UK, unwelcome immigrants from the United States should be shot. Thank you.
Unwelcome immigrants from the United States should be shot

"This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England." When William Shakespeare wrote these immortal lines in the late 16th Century Europeans were first establishing colonies in North America. Back then, the Bard surely couldn't have imagined that centuries later immigrants from that continent would cross the Atlantic in the other direction and settle in this green and pleasant land that we Englishmen call home. Some years ago, when these visitors first came to our clouded hills and pastures green they were welcomed as treasured guests but, unfortunately, when we gave them an inch they took a mile. Since then they have spread disease, driven much of the indigenous population off their land and shown scant regard for our precious countryside. These Americans tend to be bigger than the locals and they are also very aggressive, especially the black ones. Now it's time to say "enough is enough" and rid our fine country of these unwelcome pests. Prince Charles wants to see these vermin "eliminated" and I believe the most effective method of achieving this would be to shoot them. We must act now before it's too late and the decedents of the grey squirrels that our Victorian forefathers imported from the United States completely decimate England's native red squirrels. Thank you. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.youtube.com...
Flu research should be prioritized over HIV/AIDS research.

I would first like to apologize for a mistake I made while setting up this debate, it was originally intended to have 5 rounds. I would like to begin my argument by comparing the contagiousness of the two diseases, how easy it is to prevent infection, and how dangerous both diseases are. As for HIV/AIDS the primary means of transmission between humans tends to be sexual contact, specifically on the receiving partner's end. In addition to this HIV can be spread by contaminated blood transfusions and breast milk.[1] This, fortunately makes it very easy for most of the population to avoid infection by the virus if safe sex practices are used. On the other hand the flu is spread through the air, via coughing, sneezing, etcetera.[2] This makes preventing catching the flu incredibly difficult, and means that a flu can spread around world in a matter of days, infecting hundreds of thousands in a short period of time. While AIDS may be more deadly in a normal year with an estimated three million people perishing of it each year it does not have the potential to cause the mass kill offs that the flu has the potential to cause. AIDS is a slow killer, taking many years to destroy the host's immune system where the flu can kill within a matter of days. For the most part the flu is falsely seen as a seasonal, non serious disease but this couldn't be farther from the truth. On an average year about twenty five thousand people die of the flu, but that isn't to say that the Flu does not have the potential to cause a massive amount of deaths over a very short period of time. In fact over the span of a single year the flu killed more people than HIV has since it was discovered. I am of course talking about the Spanish flu of 1918 in which forty million people died throughout the world. So it is not the seasonal onset of flu that warrants an increase in funding, but instead it is the inevitable mass pandemic that will, without proper action ravage the population.
Would you rather have Pepsi or Coke

i believe that Coke is better than Pepsi. It has better variants and a easier taste. While Pepsi is sweeter, Coke is much more appealing in terms of drinking a full glass compared to a full glass of Pepsi. This is because the more bitter taste is easier to consume taste-wise over time. In short, it taste better and has far better variants than its counterpart, Pepsi.
Would you rather have Pepsi or Coke

This debate isn't even worth my time. Pepsi is obviously the better choice, in fact I would say that my opponent has even pointed that out in his argument. He himself said that Coke had a bitter taste, which some may say is better, but that is dependent on one's preference, and I would say the general population would say they would rather have something sweet instead of bitter. Asides from that, Pepsi does in fact come in a wide varieties, making his point void.
[SPOILER ALERT] The fake Sawyer was the best character of the Lost series.

Please do not vote on this debate if you do not understand Lost or do not comprehend the arguments due to lack of knowledge in the Lost enterprise!Let's go! I accept anyone with at least 4 completed debates to challenge me!Fake Sawyer = James Ford (I didn't want to spoil this in the resolution as if you haven't watched the series yet this ruins a couple of surprises).Con must represent as the advocate of a different character (They are not permitted to take the approach that there is more than one 'best' character, nor that all characters were equal).If Con takes either of the banned approaches, they forfeit all 7 points to Pro.Round one is for acceptance and clearly stating the character of choice.The character Con chooses cannot be changed at a later time and no opening arguments are permitted in round one.If Con presents any arguments in round 1, they forfeit all 7 points to Pro.
should cats be de clawed

All right. My ContentionI'll be arguing under Immanuel Kant's position that "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." In this regard we have to look at the needs of both parties, at how the relationship between cats and people ought to work. To be goal has to be for the relationship to mutually beneficial. On the cat's side of the relationship, the get receives free housing, food, exercise, and free movement, under most good owners. The owner receives a cat, massive monetary losses, and possibly torn furniture.In this regard we can see that the relationship between the owner and the cat is extremely one sided. It is only just that the owner gets to mitigate some of those negatives to him/herself. This way, neither is being used as a means to an end, and both are in a more mutually beneficial relationship. RebuttalIn regards to my opponent's argument, we can see that my opponent simply makes a statement, and never once provides any sort of reasoning. To actually have an intellectual debate, we need logic and reasoning, not simple statements. What my opponent has demonstrated is either a massive massive misunderstanding of, or ineptitude at, actual debate. Not only that, but as the debater that has argued for the deviation from the norm, and the debater that has initiated the debate, and therefore has the burden of proof. My opponent never meets the BOP. Therefore, you should vote for the affirmation.I await any actually arguments from my opponent.