BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
animal testing

yes i am weariing makeup ight now but before i buy anything i look to see if t os animal tested on four differnt sites i never wear or use ny product unless it is animal safe even if i am out of shampoo i wont use y sisters i will use my body wash or bubble bath!!!! (my family uses non animal safe products) 3M Acuvue Aim Air Wick Always Ambi Aquafresh Arm & Hammer Armor All Arrid AussieAveenoAxe Bain de SoleilBand-AidBiothermBlue BuffaloBoyle-MidwayBraunCacharelCalgon CarefreeChapstickChristina Aguilera PerfumesClairolClean & ClearClorox Close-upColgate-Palmolive Co.Comfort CoppertoneCrestDial DOLCE & GABBANA Dove DownyDranoFebrezeFekkai Finish409Fresh StepGarnierGilletteGlad GladeGreen WorksHead & Shoulders Helena RubinsteinHerbal Essences Hugo Boss Iams IvoryJohnson & Johnson Joy K.Y. Kaboom Kerastase LaRouche Posay Listerine Lubriderm Lux Lysol Mary Kay Maybelline Mop & GloMr. Clean Nair Neutrogena Nice n Easy Off Olay Old English Old Spice Oomph!Oral-B Palmolive Pfizer Pine-Sol Pledge Puffs Purell S.C. Johnson Scope Scrubbing Bubbles Sebastian Professional Sensodyne Signal Skin ID Skintimate Soft & Dri softsoap Spray 'N Wash 800-232-9665; www.spraynwash.com/Stayfree Suave Sunlight Sunsilk Surf Swiffer Tide Tilex Unilever Vaseline Veet Vichy (L'Oreal) Vicks Vidal Sasson Viktor & Rolf (L'Oreal) Walgreens Windex Woolite Zest (Procter & Gamble)shockig isent it! to know that he thing u use daily are eing used to torture animals!
animal testing

It is only acceptable to test human medicines on human beings if they give their consent. Non-human animals are never able to give such consent. It is therefore never acceptable to test medicines on perfectly healthy animals, even if the treatments are for use on other animals.The advent of genetic technologies has made possible all sorts of new and horrific acts of animal exploitation, from cloning sheep to creating mutant and hybrid creatures with no dignity or quality of life at all. We should end animal experimentation before things get even worse.In fact, most animal experiments are done on animals that are nothing like human beings - rats and mice - which undermines the argument that these experiments are a reliable guide to human reactions. Scientifically, as well as morally, most animal experimentation is to be rejected - the reaction of a mouse to a substance is no guide to human reactions. Each species has its own unique physiology. And the more similar an animal is to a human being - e.g. a chimpanzee - the more intelligent and sentient it is, and so the more immoral it is to treat is as a disposable and worthless biological object.in fact few breakthroughs have been made as a result of animal experimentation - its advocates have overstated its achievements. There has been a catalogue of errors and failures in animal testing, which its advocates gloss over; as many as half the drugs that have been approved in the US and the UK after animal testing have subsequently had to be withdrawn because of harmful side-effects. Furthermore, there are alternatives to many tests that are currently done on animals - e.g. growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory.besides that how would you like to have laundrey deterget clowly and painfully driped onto your eye with out being able to blink it out or getting a paralitic because you try to resist and of you say i woud take one for the team and just do it than lets really do it to you and see if you are a little "squmiry"
Women in Combat

I accept. Women should be allowed in combat. Although you claim to not be sexist, it is impossible for it to not be viewed as such. Women may be physically weaker in some cases, but I know for a fact that there are some girls out there who could whoop my butt. Men are not always emotionally attached to women's safety. If a woman is good enough to get into a position where she can serve her country through combat, there is no reason she should not be allowed to.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative asertion #1 in 1974, court-ordered busing was not the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston"s public schools Give other options and give choices, violence, where you live is your choice, so the schools arent really segregated.(by law) Affirmative assertion #2 Court-ordered desegregatgion plans do more harm than good. Questions about schooling should be left to communities to solve. More harmful, people don"t get to know each other for their colo of the skin. Negative assertion #3 race should not be used as a basis for school assignment Desegregation does not speak to drop out rates that hover near 50 percent for black and hispanic high school students, parents don"t care for integregation they just want a better life for them, in 2001 the national center for education statistics reported that the average white student attends a school that is 80 percent white, while 70 percent of black students attend schools where nearly two-thirds of students are black and hispanic
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative assertion #1: In 1974, court-ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston"s public schools. 1: Blacks and whites didn"t want to mix so they needed a higher power 2: Blacks needed a better qualirt education. 3: Neighborhood schools were closer. Affirmative assertion#3: Studens and society benefit when more children are able attend racially intergrated schools. 1: Academics improved. 2: Less bullying. 3: training to deal with a diverse real world. Affirmative assertion#5: Courts have the power to reduce the effects of raicial discrimination. 1: No attempt to give power based on skin color 2: avoiding racial isolation brong interest to the state. 3: Brown invited racialy dicerse classrooms.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

counter negative assertion 1: your wrong because thats the only thing they could do to make the blacks and whites there was not much the court could do counter negative assertion2: if the court left it all to the communities sure they would come up with 1 or two good idea but to plan out the situation would over stress them. counter negative assertion 3: not worrying about race should not be a option racialism will always be a problem in the world and the US.
The Death Penalty

+ "I hate to say this buddy, but you just contradicted yourself. First you said that the death penalty wasn't a punishment right?? Then you said that this type of punishment is based off of ignorance." I wouldn't say this is a contradiction. It is a punishment based off of ignorance, which isn't really much of a punishment at all. You are just making them face what they will have to face eventually anyways. + "And besides if you sentence them to a life in prison, it is basically like giving them the death penalty anyways, considering the fact that they are going to die in prison." Not at all. If you sentence them to death they spend, at most, a year or so in prison awaiting their decision (and hoping and praying for anything else, rather than thinking about their actions) and then dying. If you sentence them to life, you make them spend decades in prison having nothing to think about but what brought them to their situation. Not to mention the atrocities that occur in prison. I, and many others (including those who have been to prison), would rather die than go to prison. + "If we kept all of the murders alive as was your suggestion, the prisons would soon become overflowing, and we would have to spend your precious tax dollars to build new prisons." If you take all of the people who have been on death row or been executed, and divide it by the amount of people incarcerated in the United States, you would determine that it would represent .1% of incarceration in the United States. Hardly a devastation to our tax dollars. +Sources+ http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...
The Death Penalty

I hate to say this buddy, but you just contradicted yourself. First you said that the death penalty wasn't a punishment right?? Then you said that this type of punishment is based off of ignorance. I"m a little confused here. And besides if you sentence them to a life in prison, it is basically like giving them the death penalty anyways, considering the fact that they are going to die in prison. If we kept all of the murders alive as was your suggestion, the prisons would soon become overflowing, and we would have to spend your precious tax dollars to build new prisons.
The Death Penalty

Death isn't really a punishment. The only scary thing about it is not knowing what is going to happen. This is a punishment purely based on ignorance. Would it not be more effective to send a criminal to jail for the rest of his life where he will be raped, and beaten up, and kept alive to endure it the next day and eventually after years of this, they will die alone in their little, lifeless cell. Considering that a punishment is dealt to make a person regret their actions, I would say keeping them alive would maximize the effectiveness exponentially. Killing them would end the actual punishment really fast.
The Death Penalty

My opponent cries that my information is not correct, however in order to prove the validation I am going to list at least two different sources that prove that the cost of a lethal injection is about $86. Source # 1 http://wiki.answers.com... Source # 2 http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us... Source # 3 http://www.life123.com... Source # 4 http://www.ask.com... Wow, I have four different sources that prove that I am right, how can you ignore such blatant facts?? And what about the overcrowding? You never even tried to defend yourself on that one. Which would you rather do; die really quickly, and never see your family again, or get the freedom to be able to live, and enjoy things like a shower, meals, and a bed to sleep in?? The death penalty is much better, because it doesn't allow the murder the luxury of staying alive. It only make sense, that if someone takes some-else's life, that their life should be required of them as well. Get into the mind of the victims family. What if someone killed a member in your family?? Would you want them dead, or alive? I guarantee that you would be consumed in an emotional tidal wave of extreme anger, and extreme sadness. Would you want them to live, and get the freedom of life that they stripped away from your loved one? Or would you want them dead like they deserve to be. Justice must be served, and you know as well as I do that a life in prison would cost more, and be much more enjoyable than a death sentence. Death or life? Its really not that hard of a choice. If the prisoners had their say in it, I assure you that every single one of them would pick living over a death sentence any day of the week.
The Death Penalty

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Get your information right if you are going to state that the death penalty costs $83.55. Capital punishment requires much more vigorous trials than life in prison. It costs the state 2 mil to kill someone and costs 500 thousand to prosecute and send someone to prison for life. And you can't say that sending someone to prison for life is more intimidating than the death penalty for two reasons. 1. Statistically, there is a 6 times murder rate in the US than Britain and a 5 times murder rate in Australia, and both of them don't have a death penalty. 2. Psychologically, think in the mind of a killer. If you lost the moral compass to kill people, then you have a lot a sense of personal being. This killing usually leads to a hatred of the self (in most cases) and sometimes a simple loss of self. The act of losing your life means very little, but the act of staying in confinement for the rest of yourself and hating who you are is much worse. +Sources+ http://www.deathpenalty.org... http://www.associatedcontent.com...
Blissey is one of the best pokemon

Blissey is a very good pokemon. In one battle on Pok"mon showdown, I used my blissey, my last pokemon, starting from turn 30 and lasted 70 turns and won against 5 legendaries. Don`t have the link, but just look for replays of Honestly Bossome vs. MyRecknTeam. Blissey is good because it has the absolute maximum base HP allowed by the game`s code: 255. (max base HP is calculated as a single byte, or 8 bits. Binary for 255 is 11111111, making it the absolute highest possible.) This mountain of health, capable of reaching the jaw-dropping amount of 714, is amazing when paired with it`s base 135 special defense. This makes Blissey next to IMPOSSIBLE to kill with special attacks. While it`s physical defense may be poor, if it can survive the attack, soft-boiled will heal that crap right up after they`ve used substitute to avoid the next incoming attack. Also, your physical attack does not matter if you have no moves that use it. (Substitute, Aromatherapy, Soft-Boiled, Seismic Toss being an example) You can`t even toxic stall blissey, as it`s ability Natural Cure instantly cures status effects upon switch. (That, or it just uses aromatherapy.)
Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering

Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1).Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2).This is for the Beginner's tournament semi finals and I wish zeromeansnothing the best of luck in this debate.Sources(1) https://www.google.co.uk...(2) https://www.google.co.uk...;
Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering

Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.' PlatoWik:Source (1) Verdict : Despite widespread public and media perception, the Montana Supreme Court verdict did not establish a law; Oregon, California, Washington, and Vermont remain the only four states in the U.S. to have Death with Dignity laws. Pro's position is an example of a clamouring demand for something to be enshrined within law or, in other words, it is an effort to establish a 'legal right'. This is a legitimate component of law making. Pressure that proves irresistible eventually leads to a facilitation compromise. This is subsequently expanded to a point where it often becomes a Law that is unrecognizable even to its early supporters. Abortion law is a perfect example of this 'glacier effect' that transforms our intentions over time. (It just happens). We need to avoid making laws that will capitulate to become little more than a 'consensus of convenience' when exposed to attack.Conclusion.I mentioned the U.N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights (2) and I explained that this was conceivably, a sound basis for Law. It is however, without a real jurisdiction in which to operate. It's idealism has been rejected It is therefore, not Law. Legal considerations around P.A.S. overflow into all areas of actual Law in places like the U.S. both at State and Federal level. This suggests to me that P.A.S. is not that piece of the jigsaw requiring immediate attention. We need to establish our legal edges in the hope that they encapsulate generosity and compassionate. Within such a framework we might well be able to help the terminally ill and suffering patient to the best of our abilities as fellow human beings, be that in whatever manner that is agreed upon. Physician Assisted Suicide is not that way, IMHO I thank all who have followed this debate to this end. Sources(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.un.org...
Sex with Animals should be legal

The pro was not specifically clear as to what side they are taking, but due to the statement the pro made above "My dog and I have a magical relationship. Who are you to judge what I do in the privacy of my own home. " I assume that they support the idea that beastiality should be legalized. Therefore I will be against it. I wish pro the best of luck. Beastiality-A sexual connection between a human being and an animal. [1] Source(s) . http://www.duhaime.org... [1]
Would the USA beat Russia in a war

Russia's economy is crumbling and has been declining for awhile Russian equipment is outdated Russia int a super power but a regional power Putin is trying to push it back into the Soviet era but cant afford with such a crashing economy I get a feeling the war would be along Russia border with countries such as japan Germany Britain and France with us logically speaking china would more then likely stay out of it and keep itself isolated out of this situation north Korea would probably join but could easily be destroyed our allies such as japan has a very strong economy india may even play such a role as an ally being a partner we continue to do military exercises with the allies are far superior in numbers equipment and economy The US is the most powerful army in the world being statistically real though our 2 countries will probably never go to war
Deport all Illegal Immigrants: Change my Mind

We are not a nation of illegal immigrants however. We are a nation of laws. When you say that people are fleeing their countries because of dangerous situations and coming to America to stay safe, sure, that is fine with me as long as they go back to their home country once the situation is figured out. They can not use their country as an excuse to stay here after the situation has been figured out. The Bible does not say to be welcoming to ILLEGAL immigrants knowingly breaking the law and not going through the country the right way. I will be open to having my mind changed with a convincing argument. So far, this has not been convincing at all. Again, they destroy the economy and take jobs away from law-abiding Americans. Your argument is basically to be kind to illegal immigrants. I have given many facts, but you have not. So therefore, you have not changed my mind. Hopefully in your last argument you give facts and statistics, then you will have a much better chance to change my mind.
Deport all Illegal Immigrants: Change my Mind

I hate having to use cliche arguments, but we are a nation of immigrants. Do you dpeak a Nativ language? If you are not indiginous, you can trace back to immigrants. Many Honduran immigrant women are fleeing gang rape and slavery which is what human trafficing is. Mexicans are fleeing drug wars. Do we get rid of criminals? Yes. Do we keep everyone else. The reason I brought up the Bible is it influences my vote and says to do good unto the least of these. Are not the immigrants the least of these. I have a very tough question for you, sir: Do you want your mind changed, pr do you just want to share what you think? I see nothing wrong with either.
Deport all Illegal Immigrants: Change my Mind

Thx for responding Con: I too am Christian; however, you should argue politics from a non-religious stand point, because not everyone agrees with Christianity. The U.S. is a country of laws, and illegals are taking jobs away from Americans who are legal or immigrated LEGALLY. There are also many cases where illegals murdered innocent people. Statistics show the estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants. They bring crime into the country. Whether it is more or less than Americans, it is a crime that they should've committed in their home country-NOT the U.S., where they are here illegally. Colleges are providing financial benefits to people that shouldn't be here over Americans. Put Americans first. Americans are dreamers too, and they don't want opportunity taken away from people who won't come here the right way. Thoughts?
Deport all Illegal Immigrants: Change my Mind

I can only type, but the Holy Spirit changes consentinting hearts and minds. I am a Christian, so I believe in do unto others as you would have them do unto you, per the command of Jesus. I am a profamily centrist Democrat, and love many President Trump policies, just not on immigration. If I were President of America, I would create a pathway to citizenship for those already here, and put in place a vetting process for those law abiding humans that need our help. Putting these people to good, honest work would improve the economy, have compassion on literally homeless humans, and lower crime. What I am NOT suggesting is a free for all, just something different. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Deport all Illegal Immigrants: Change my Mind

Yes we are. White people kidnapped black and Irish people, and illegally immigrated here against the wishes of NATIVES! Are you that ignorant that you don't even know this? You are not saying this about white immigrants, are you a racist? You don't want your mind changed, you are just trolling a debate site and wasting my time. I am blocking you asd soon as this goes to voting, because I am here to actually debate. I am more honest than you because I admit this: I will not change my mind, ever, because unlike you, I am not a racist.