BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

First of all, I was giving an example from the text of the website to show that there are alternatives to animal testing. I'm not saying that EpiSkin is the only alternative. That is why I said in the begining, "for example". If you read the entire arcticles you will see that there are many alternatives that are less costly and more accurate.EpiSkin-(a model of reconstructed human epithelium) and a variety of sophisticated, computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models that predict skin corrosivity and irritationI wasn't making those sentences my own writing and apologize. I also put the website right under the writing.I still would like you to answer my questions becuase your statements in round one are baseless remarks.
Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

Epi-skin remains as a hyper-expensive and un-commerciable idea and does not by any means guarantee the veracity of the results. There is no synthetic replica of animal tissue and how that translates into human diagnostic symptoms when exposed to the chemicals. Computer generated data is based entirely on visual data and visually integrated scanners. To draw conclusions and ostensibly objective conclusions solely on the basis of empirical data is ridiculous. My opponent oversimplifies the complex issues and symptoms that can be aroused from harmful toxins and chemicals in the products and concedes by identifying 'skin corrosivity' and 'irritation' as the sole concerns for products. I'd also like to reinstate that humans are not composed predominantly of skin and even if this alternative were to be commercialized it only addresses a small issue within a large one. What happens to flesh, organs and muscle damage - perhaps chronic? According to your logic, we are to disband the remainder of our human bodies and subsist completely on epithelial cells. In addition, I'd like to point out my opponent's plagiarism, which is equivalent to a forfeit in the debate. My opponent enlisted a segment from the following website without sourcing it directly. http://www.neavs.org... Therefore, I am not in any way obligated to respond to his second rebuttal.
Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

First argument: There is no viable alternative to animal testing. If we do not test our products on animals prior to human use and consumption, the humans will instead be in danger of potentially toxic or virulent chemicals. My opponent states that there is no viable alternative to testing cosmetics on animals, that is false. There are many alternatives to animal testing. For example. EpiSkin-(a model of reconstructed human epithelium) and a variety of sophisticated, computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models that predict skin corrosivity and irritation Here are two websites that list other alternatives. http://www.neavs.org... http://www.humanesociety.org... Companies go to their full extent to minimize the amount of deaths of test subjects and often the animals are exempted from testing scott-free. I’de like to see where you getting your information? Companies do not go to their “full extent” to minimize death. The animals also have high immunity to the chemicals than humans because they are exposed to foreign chemicals when foraging for food and searching for prey. That is an absurd statement, again, I’de like to see where your getting your information? That makes no sense what so ever and also, what are these foreign chemicals there exposed to. And please explain how foraging for food and searching for prey gives animals immunity from the chemicals there being injected with. http://www.neavs.org... http://www.humanesociety.org...
Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

My opponent has the Burden of Proof for the proposition since the testing of cosmetics on animals exists as an established system for testing the safety and hypoallergenic properties of products. [1] First argument: There is no viable alternative to animal testing. If we do not test our products on animals prior to human use and consumption, the humans will instead be in danger of potentially toxic or virulent chemicals. In addition: Humans of are of more functional and moral value than animals. Even if you don't agree with this sentiment, it is a publicly held opinion. I do not see encaged human beings, nor do I see them scurrying around scavenging for food. Clearly, society values humans in a higher position on the moral hierarchy than animals. Second argument: Companies go to their full extent to minimize the amount of deaths of test subjects and often the animals are exempted from testing scott-free. The animals also have high immunity to the chemicals than humans because they are exposed to foreign chemicals when foraging for food and searching for prey. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gary Johnson should never be president

GARY JOHNSON IS A THUGGary Johnson recently stated hat he supports quote "vaccinating children at gunpoint."{1} That's right folks, this maniac wants to forcibly inject our children with mercury and all sorts of other toxic substances. If you want to know how bad vaccines are, just take a look at the kind of crap that they use to make them,{2} then look at the side effects of this crap. It als turns out that the aluminum in vaccines might actualy be worse than the mercury!{3}GARY JOHNSON IS A COMPLETE IDIOT Yes, it's true, Gary Johnson is just another libertard who gets offended at anything. Here he says that Trumps comments are 'racist.' {4} Now, everyone understnds that Trump said a whole lot of nonsense in his campaign, but just look at what Johnson is getting mad at:"Johnson was referencing a recent Trump town hall in New Hampshire when a woman who, while pointing to her head, objected to the "heeby jobbies" worn by some employees at the TSA -- an apparent reference to hijabs, or headscarfs that some Muslim women wear. She urged him to replace Muslims with veterans. Trump said: "And we are looking at that."uh, Johnson, that's not racist- I don't even know what he was interpreting as 'racist,' Trump doesn't like Hijabs maybe? I don't really know, but if he was calling Trump a racist on account of him not liking Hijabs, then he should know that Hijabs are not a race, they are an article of clothing. GARY JOHNSON IS A HILLARY PLANTSee here.{5} It's just 1992 all over again, the establishment let Ross Perot runn so he could take votes away from George H.W. Bush, likewise, the esablihment is allowing Johnson to run enable to take votes away from Trump, allowing Hillary to win. This can further be infered by how the media doesn't give nearly enough attention to Jill Stein as they do to Gary Johnson, this is because Jill Stein would take votes away from Hillary and not Trump. GARY JOHNSON IS JUST ANOTHER GLOBALIST PIMPSorry to use fou language but that's what a globalist is- someone who wants to pimp out the nation to foreign goveronments and international corporations. Johnson says he would support the TPP, a dal which deindustrialised our nation, unemployed millions, and created a massive trade deficit.{6} This guy iwould destroy our nations finace even worse than how it is right now. For this reason, Gary Johnson should never become president.{1}. https://www.oathkeepers.org...{2}. http://vaxtruth.org...{3}. http://articles.mercola.com...{4}. http://www.cnn.com...{5}. http://usbacklash.org...{6}. http://independentpoliticalreport.com...
Resolved: We must remove paramilitary tatics/military weapons from U.S. police forces

I belive we should remove military weapons from the U.S. for the following reasons 1. tactics were originally made by President Reagan to combat drug problems which were way more severe and violent when this was implemented 2. deaths from raids/people regret these police 3.free equipment so no hesitation to use 4.not trained to use equipment 5.Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situations 6.Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasons. I will post arguments backing up these points during next round after I am sure I have an opponent. Con will post what his argument and then me mine good luck whoever debates on the con side
Imaginary Sonic Character Showdown

With a sword by his side, and a chaos emerald at hand, Sabre the Hedgehog is a force to be reckoned with. Sabre is a brown hedgehog, with a blade at hand, to be more accurate, a ninja's katana. It is indestructible, made from the core of a dying star. With it, Sabre can block any projectile's with ease, and can slice through just about anything like butter. Sabre is also a genius, with an IQ of over 400. With this knoledge, Sabre has designed many inventions, like a wrist mounted teleportation device, black hole generator, and even a homemade defilibrator that let's him breathe in space without a space suit! Sabre is also a trained ninja, as he was adopted by a Shinobi Clan member. He can do just about anything a normal ninja can. He also has abilities, like the Kaiba blast, which shoots a silver beam and can destroy even the toughest rock/metal. He is the guardian of the 8th Chaos Emerald, an orange Emerald that has more power than the other 7 combined. With it, he can do all of the other chaos moves, and a new one he perfected himself, the Chaos Counter. With Chaos Counter, he can deflect any incoming projectiles/moves, and deflect them right back to the opponent, only it has twice the damage it normally would. Also, Sabre can jab an opponent with two fingers, and them learn their DNA code, thus making himdslef an exact copy of the opponent. Taking a blow that would normally kill Sabre, he would instead revert back to his own self. Sabre is a stragetist, who learns his opponents weaknesses before striking. Sabre is serious, not preffering to insult the opponent, but preffering to use the opponent's own moves against them before using his own, (the Chaos Counter). If Sabre gets all 7 chaos emeralds, or equal power, and then adds the 8th chaos emerald's power to it, he turns into Infinite Sabre, a form that is twice the power of Super, (though Sabre can also turn Super, if he has to). I await my opponents character.
Imaginary Sonic Character Showdown

Sonic fans from all over, heed my call. Do you have an imaginary Sonic charcter that you want to show off? Well than, this is the debate for you. Here's how this is gonna go: First round: acceptance. Second round: introducing your character (what he/she looks like, abilities, character traits, etc.) Third round: an explanation on how your character could beat the opponents character. This debate has been made impossible to accept, if you are interested, say you would like to debate in the comments. The person who I feel is a true Sonic fan will be the one who gets picked. Lets do this!
There Should Be No Copyrights, No Patents, and No Trademarks

Right, being an atheist, it does not surprise me that you deny property rights. Commies are atheists, after all. But the fact remains that I have a right to the fruit of my intellect, no matter how much your envious and greedy hands may say otherwise. Until you can prove I have to no right to the fruit of my intellect, you lose the debate.
There Should Be No Copyrights, No Patents, and No Trademarks

The fruit of your intellect may be your property, but it shouldn't be your property. IP law may protect that property, but IP law shouldn't exist. Taking the fruit of your intellect without your consent is a vague concept I am skeptical of. It is not well defined. Copying the fruit of your intellect without your consent is one thing; taking it without your consent is another. While taking the fruit of your intellect without your consent may be theft, copying the fruit of your intellect without your consent is not theft. Therefore, copying the fruit of your intellect without your consent should not be legally considered as theft.
There Should Be No Copyrights, No Patents, and No Trademarks

My point is that no copyrights, no patents, and no trademarks should exist. Copyright, patent, and trademark infringement are not forms of theft. Forms of expression, processes, and pictorial logos are not exclusive to only one person or organization. They exist as abstract ideas, similar to geometric points, lines, and planes. They can exist anywhere and in any person's mind. It is therefore not right to assign them to only one person or organization. Copyright, patent, and trademark infringement are not like stealing some material objects such as a vase. A vase is exclusive in the sense that it has unique properties such as location and time of existence. For that reason, the vase can not be copied exactly. People may have different ideas of what should be done with the vase, and so it makes sense, and is necessary, to assign the vase's destiny to only one person or organization. Some words, processes, and pictures, however, have limited properties and thus can be copied exactly.
Should the United States allow people to have abortions

I accept. Resolved: Should the United States allow people to have abortions? As PRO, I must defend the position that the US should allow people to have abortions, while CON must argue that they should not. However, CON has already conceded this debate. CON writes, "I think so, Most people make stupid decisions in their life, especially in high school where they can't think about the future, and if they do have children can they take care of it? ! I think not, and most parents will be angry with their children. Most kids don't worry about that that much, do you really think a 16 year old girl should have to take care of her child? That will most likely end her education and cause her to work at MC. Donald's , which is not a living job, and she will probably not be able to get back in school. "In the process, he provides several unique reasons as to why people should be allowed to have abortions: (a) people make stupid decisions, (b) they may not be able to take care of it, (c) not allowing it may breed resentment amongst parents toward their children, and (d) it may ruin a young girl's life. All of these, of course, are arguments in favor of this resolution - and thus in favor of my position. I would add to these reasons, of course, bodily autonomy: women and girls own themselves, and it would be categorically wrong to impose upon them the onus of not being able to control their own bodies - or to impose a moral view on them when in reality morality is far more complex.
Should the United States allow people to have abortions

Should the United States allow people to have abortions? I think so, Most people make stupid decisions in their life, especially in high school where they can't think about the future, and if they do have children can they take care of it?! I think not, and most parents will be angry with their children. Most kids don't worry about that that much, do you really think a 16 year old girl should have to take care of her child? That will most likely end her education and cause her to work at MC. Donald's , which is not a living job, and she will probably not be able to get back in school.
The Catholic Church is the only true Church

I apologize once again for responding so late, time seems to be something I have very little of lately, and I don't seem to have a lot of time left to respond, so I will see what I can get written down. To start of with, I will actually apologize, and admit I used a bad source. It was the last thing I added to my argument, and I obviously didn't read the source material well enough. I thank my opponent for pointing this out. Sacred ScriptureI would like to repsond to my opponent's different claims of the Apocryphal books being cannon, but I sadly do not have the time to do this in this round, I hope my opponnent will grant me the opportunity to do this in the last round. "Is that not an example of circular reasoning? The Canon is true if it does not contradict the Canon. It still took around 350 years for the Church to establish the Canon. If that was the only criteria, then how could it take almost 4 centuries for the early Christians to settle the Canon? " I think you misunderstood me. I simply meant that books which claim to be divinely inspired, and doesn't contradict the widely accepted canon, can be considered to be canon. For example, the gospel of Judas claims to be divinely inspired, but it contradicts everything else we recognize as scripture, so we don't claim it to be holy writ. While I'd say the apocryphal books in no way appear to be divinely inspired, and should therefore not be considered scripture. Interpretation of scriptureI would like to defend personal interpretation of scripture in the last round of the debate. Once again i regrettably do not have time to do it now. I would also have liked to have added a few words about the Eucharist here, but the timer above says i have 1 minute left, so there won't be any of that.
The Catholic Church is the only true Church

I agree with my opponents definition of The Catholic Church, I however feel the need to address his second definition. I will however argue that there is not ONE true church, in that I don't think a certain denomination of Christianity has the only truth. This includes not only all the different Protestant ones, but also Catholicism and Orthodoxy. My opponent is correct in saying we are both believers in Jesus Christ, and therefore have common ground. This will be an interesting debate, and hopefully we'll both get something out of it. (I apologize in advance for my potentially abundant amount of grammar errors).
The Catholic Church is the only true Church

Arguments are posted in the second round. The Catholic Church - The Church that is in communion with the Holy See of Rome. Only true Church - The Church teaches truth and anything that contradicts it is not Christian teaching (and hence, not the truth). Regarding common ground, I contend that my opponent and myself are both believers in Jesus Christ, Trinitarianism, the Bible's authority and other "mere Christian" doctrines. ..
The Athiest Defense

No this isn't a linguistics thing. You made a hypothetical reality where theism didn't exist not the word theism...theism itself didnt exist, if theism itself doesn't exist then the word theism wouldn't exist either. This isn't a linguistic argument. The core basis of theism is GOD...that's apart of what theism is. You remove theism you remove god and everything that comes with it. You're still trying to incorporate god in the equation when you are creating a hypothetical reality where god (the belief, the idea, the word, the concept) doesn't exist. There would be no "absence of god" cus god wouldn't even exist for.it to be an absence of. If it doesn't exist then atheism (the disbelief in GOD) CANNOT exist because god (in every way) doesn't exist. You can't call it atheism anymore. You keep saying positive claim..No it's a CLAIM...not positive or negative. We are UNABLE to be against something that was never initially presented in the first place. All.atheism is, is a defense. Atheism is NOT neutral for the 2nd time...its the opposite of theism,.that's not neutral. answer: I never claimed atheism lacked a belief in something they are unaware of. We can definitely remain in a state of lack of belief once we're aware of it...that's the entire basis of atheism. You made us aware of your claim we reject it as truth. We CANNOT reject something that was never presented. Example: Me- " I have an invisible,all powerful poca dotted creature called a Chibicorizoo that I talk to" .....( I just presented the claim) You- "what? That's amazing...but it's hard to believe. I don't believe you...prove it"...( you just rejected the claim) Me- " I can't prove it. Can you prove it's not there?"...(me attempting to switch the ONUS onto you) Logical fallacy.^^^^ furthermore you would've NEVER known about the creature until I made the claim. Question: Prior to me making up a Chibicorizoo...how could you have possibly disbelieved it existed? How could you even lack a belief?
The Athiest Defense

:) I only repeated the rebuttals it in different ways because some people grasp in different ways since neither of them stuck. Then I will chose 2 of them as my strongest refutation. You don't need the existence of something to not believe in it. Someone has to have invented and mentioned gods in order for us to know what we don't believe, but we can still not believe whether there are believers or not. There wouldn't be the word 'atheism', but the concept of a lack of god would exist (in the absence of a God). the concept of Atheism would still exist. We just wouldn't have a word for it. So. .sounds simply to me. its impossible to remove the fact that there would be in reality an "absence of a God" You are still talking about linguistics, the words, they wont exist. That I agree. But The "absence of a God" will remain. and if the Absence of God can remain then again that's why said "A whole society could develop without religion, without making up a god of any kind to believe in; everyone in that society would be atheists and none of them would be theists. " There only 2k Characters I cannot use up another round again about a stance that wasn't the main case of the resolution. MY POSITION was that the atheist that use the "lack of belief in God" stance for the purpose of removing itself from a positive claim so they do not have to defend it. Once you are introduced to an idea you cannot be neutral about it, CON has agreed that Atheism is not a neutral position, yet he tries to remain in a position that IS neutral wanted. I want Con to PROVE his position, but he himself says he cannot prove a position that doesn't exist. You cannot remain in a state of lack of belief once introduced to a concept as in being unaware of it altogether, if you ARE aware then how can you lack the belief of what you are NOT aware of, without being aware of it first?
The Athiest Defense

1. You are not comprehending what is being said here. If theism NEVER existed...aka belief in GOD...then no one can disbelieve or have a lack of belief in GOD. God wouldn't be a subject, a word, an idea, a thought, a position...NOTHING. We cannot disbelieve or have a lack of belief in something that NOT ONE PERSON has ever heard of. How can you say they lack a belief in GOD...when GOD-the word, the idea, the being, the definition....doesn't even exist? Rhetorical....you can't use the word GOD anymorr...GOD doesnt exist in that.scenario. so they wouldnt have a lack if belief in god...that word is nonexistent in your scenario. 2. You can't substitute fairies with god..Because the idea of fairies EXIST...if it didn't exist, you wouldn't of used Fairies as an example. The concept of fairies had to be presented FIRST for you to even have knowledge of them..So yes, you have had to have knowledge of fairies to even come up with that word..Someone elses belief. 3. You keep repeating the same argument using diff.examples. "Even if there was no theism, as in there was no belief in any God/s whatsoever, the thought of Gods would still remain as an idea." ^^^^you literally just proved my position correct. To atheists that's all god is-an IDEA. God can't be an actual physical being to atheists,.that would contradict the whole concept of atheism. 5. The concept or lack of belief in GOD is what makes atheism what it is....if.you take GOD out of that.definition,..all you have is lack of belief..... The concept of GOD is what makes it atheism. 6. No everyone.wouldn't be atheists...same argument again. In.order to be atheists...the word,term,name,concept,idea.of GOD has to be present. answer: You can attack the atheist position all you want. We are on defense remember? But the ONUS will ALWAYS rely on the person making the claim. We didn't make a claim, we simply rejected it. I have no.question