BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Research

How is that not selfish?!?!!?!? Animals can suffer from natural causes just like the rest of us. Scientist are not trying to improve animal well being! they are being selfish and want to find a cure to cancer in order to make money and become famous. That also results with medical advances for humans but its just as selfish. Why don't scientists test humans for new medicines? Answer- "because they aren't animals." Its unfair how cruel humans are to animals for their own selfish needs. Thank goodness for organizations like PETA that help prevent animal cruelty. I am sure if it were up to you, you would probably want to ban all animal rights! they feel too! they hurt and feel just like humans do. It's like testing a baby, just because the baby doesn't know what is going on doesn't mean its not afraid and hurt. And stem cells are illegal. In fact they are illegal because the potential to get a hold of these cells require some (small chance) of hurting the unborn baby but when it comes to using and killing animals its perfectly fine. Stem cells are illegal because they have yet to be proven they can help find cures. Its all bogus news trying to get people to donate money and make other scientists wealthy while keeping sick folks hopeful for a cure to their disease.
Animal Research

Animal research is a great phenomena that has happened in the science department. It has helped millions of people around the world. In fact, humans suffering from diabetes type 1 are treated with artificial or pig insulin to help them stay alive. Scientists figured out this method to lower blood concentrations in humans by researching diabetes in animals. But diabetes are not the only advancement made in medicine, chicken pox, small pox, genetic mutations, and much more. Animal research is going to allow millions of humans to no longer suffer from diseases. In fact a new type of cell, termed stem cells, which could be found in placenta and umbilical cord are thought to have the potential to cure multiple life threatening diseases, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and multiple types of cancers. With so many great potential advances, should animal research even be considered?! I mean if you were diagnosed with cancer and there was a potential to cure your disease and get you life back, wouldn't you do everything and anything no matter the price? I am sure everyone would say yes. Animal testing doesn't even have to be selfish act. Cures for diseases don't have to only effect humans, it can also help animals. Humans are not the only ones to suffer with diabetes or ADH deficiencies. Sacrificing one life can save millions. The end product outweighs the cost.
Heinz Guderian was a better general than Erich Von Manstein

I personally believe that Rommel and Guderian were the two best generals of WWII. I am challenging ej3467273 to this debate because he believes that Manstein was the best general of WWII. I will argue that Guderian was a better general. By "better" I don't only talk about how successful a general was, but also about how skilled a general was.
Is abortion a violation of a humans rights and freedoms

"The woman should feel guilty she had deprived her unborn child with experiences such as graduation and marriage." Like I said previously, there is no biological fact to prove that person-hood is given at conception. The giving of person-hood is simply something based on either philosophy or religion, and neither of those have any facts to back them up. Therefore, the argument that you are taking life away from a fetus is completely null, unless you can provide facts to prove otherwise. "...but when the mother aborts the fetus they have the choice whether to terminate the fetus." That's not necessarily true; sometimes nature aborts the pregnancy before it reaches fetal viability. These are known as miscarriages and two-thirds of human conception is naturally aborted by that process: so, no - sometimes the woman does not have the choice to terminate the fetus and the body does it for them. "Yes they should be punished they are adults they should be able to make decisions that will be in their best interest" Having sexual intercourse can be in their best interest. There are many benefits to sexual intercourse, such as: stress relief, boosts immune system, and it increases self-esteem with many other benefits, as well. To move onto your next comment about condoms; sometimes they break from manufacturing disorders and this can cause unwanted pregnancy. If you are a young woman [which, in itself, can cause many dangerous - sometimes life threatening - situations.] and you conceive, you will have many problems going through the pregnancy. Lack of income, no time to further future for parents and/or child, and family issues immediately after birth. Also, you have left one of my arguments uncontested: "If fetal rights were enshrined in law, women's bodies, rights, and health would be subordinated to the protection of embryos. The legal consequences of such a law would be catastrophic. The best way to protect the fetus is to promote the health and well-being of women. (Pro-Choice Action.)" Like I said before, you would have to give human rights to fetuses and you simply cannot do that by, one, enshrining fetal rights in law and, two, using religious/philosophical beliefs [on when person-hood is given] to promote such laws. Sources: Benefits of sex: http://www.webmd.com...
Is abortion a violation of a humans rights and freedoms

Sexual desires and activities should not be punished with motherhood Yes they should be punished they are adults they should be able to make decisions that will be in their best interest and to know the risks that that carries, they've invented something called the condom also known as a prophylactics that terminated the chance of having a child. They make the woman feel guilty for wanting to abort the child The woman should feel guilty she had deprived her unborn child with experiences such as graduation and marriage. Now, why I believe that abortion is a violation of humans rights. Even if sperm and egg are living there is no way to save the extra sperm but when the mother aborts the fetus they have the choice whether to terminate the fetus.
Is abortion a violation of a humans rights and freedoms

Thank you for your entrance into the argument; I'm a very open-minded person, I do not believe I'll be offended or I will offend you. First off, I would like to state that assuming that the 'child' has person-hood at conception is usually a religious belief and has absolutely no evidence to support that matter. There is not a consensus to when a human life begins; that argument is flimsy due to the fact that sperm and egg are living and it could be argued that they, too, have human life. Yet, most of the sperm is wasted and almost two-thirds of human conception is spontaneously aborted by nature itself. "I will start off with saying abortion is not only effecting the mother but is depriving the unborn child..." I can only assume that "effecting" is derogatory, meaning that it is badly affecting the mother and the 'child'. When, in actuality, abortions can have a beneficial effect on the mother in numerous different scenarios: Lowering the risk of death to the mother during labor, lowering the risk of having to use scarce finances to care for a child, and it especially helps when the woman has been raped or was involved in unwanted incest. "...may I remind you it is the woman's choice to have intercourse and that they should now the risks that that carries..." Sexual desires and activities should not be punished with motherhood - it is vindictive and cruel to the woman and the child. Anti-abortionists make it out to seem that motherhood is a trivial milestone by dismissing pregnancy as an inconvenience. They make the woman feel guilty for wanting to abort the child and/or having such sexual activities, ultimately dismissing compassion where it is needed. Now, why I believe that abortion is NOT a violation for human rights and freedoms. Like I said previously, there is not evidence to support the opinion that person-hood is given to the 'child' at conception. If you are also to say that it is a violation of human rights, there would need to be human rights for fetuses, correct? "If fetal rights were enshrined in law, women's bodies, rights, and health would be subordinated to the protection of embryos. The legal consequences of such a law would be catastrophic. The best way to protect the fetus is to promote the health and well-being of women. (Pro-Choice Action.)" Sources: Pro-Choice Action: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...
Is abortion a violation of a humans rights and freedoms

Before I begin we all have different views on subject such as this and I hope we do not upset one another during this debate. I will start off with saying abortion is not only effecting the mother but is depriving the unborn child with rich life experience like going to school or having a family, some would even consider it murder. Abortion is only acceptable for those who have been sexually assaulted, but usually thats not the case, may I remind you it is the woman's choice to have intercourse and that they should now the risks that that carries, so to finish my statement I believe that Abortion is a violation of the unborn child's rights.
Art should not be graded at school ( Or atleast not depending the student's actual skill )

'Art should be graded. Schools generally grade art based on student knowledge and appreciation of techniques and variety of art. A student's own artwork is not heavily judged. But knowledge of art is a skill in of itself. ' I don't know where do you come from, But in Canada atleast, Your art is judged. Your knowledge of art don't matter and you can throw it in the trash. I never learnt a single thing about the story of art. I get given a paper, And then you need to draw something. This surely is not a single case and a large number of people probably have the same thing as I 'If you say it shouldn't be graded because some kids have a personal problem then fine, Schools can make exceptions. ' It can't. They can't just not grade a whole subject, And most teachers are apparently too retarded to understand that some people have problems with art, And it isn't something you can ' study ' about ( well you can but it's time confusing ) ' But this debate is talking in generalizations. In general, Schools should grade art. If they don't, Then why even have it as a subject? If schools have art as a subject, They should grade it, Otherwise they're wasting people's time. People can learn and do art at home. ' Then remove art. My point is that art shouldn't be graded, Weither or not it should actually exist, It isn't my point, I don't care, I would be okay for art to not even exist. It isn't my point at all.
Art should not be graded at school ( Or atleast not depending the student's actual skill )

I want to remind voters not to let your own opinion affect your voting. Art should be graded. Schools generally grade art based on student knowledge and appreciation of techniques and variety of art. A student's own artwork is not heavily judged. But knowledge of art is a skill in of itself. If you say it shouldn't be graded because some kids have a personal problem then fine, Schools can make exceptions. But this debate is talking in generalizations. In general, Schools should grade art. If they don't, Then why even have it as a subject? If schools have art as a subject, They should grade it, Otherwise they're wasting people's time. People can learn and do art at home.
Art should not be graded at school ( Or atleast not depending the student's actual skill )

Art can easily hurt a student's year by lowering his average/average compared to class, Even thought he is good at school in general. A student who aim for a 80 average can see that objective broken by art, Who can lower the average by 1-2 points. Not everyone is as good at art, And some, Like me, Have multiple actual problems that they were born with that make it harder. I do not have any more argument that'd I'd speak about as I want to see what my opponent have to say.
Art should not be graded at school ( Or atleast not depending the student's actual skill )

"Then remove art. My point is that art shouldn't be graded, Wether or not it should actually exist, It isn't my point, I don't care, I would be okay for art to not even exist. It isn't my point at all. "It's important whether or not it exists. That's my point. If art is a subject, It should be graded. Your title: "art should not be graded at school" implies that art is a subject in your point. That's your whole case: Art (a subject) in school, Should not be graded. Otherwise it's: "Art (which I do at home) should not be graded in school" which is nonsensical. So let's be very clear here, Pro is stating that art, As a subject, In school, Should not be graded. We have to get this very clear, if we want an actual debate. Otherwise, come chat with me on a forum. This is a debate. "I don't know where do you come from, But in Canada atleast, Your art is judged. Your knowledge of art don't matter and you can throw it in the trash. I never learnt a single thing about the story of art. I get given a paper, And then you need to draw something. This surely is not a single case and a large number of people probably have the same thing as I"Alright, Well now you've actually lost this debate. Next time, Build your case properly and be specific. Art should not be a graded subject in Canadian schools, For example. Because I accepted this debate on the assumption that we are talking of general principles. In layman's language: "Hey, Hypothetically, In schools, If art is a subject, It should be graded like the other subjects right? ". In debates, It's important that both parties know exactly what is being debated. Anyway, As to your point, There are more skills than just knowledge of art. Your accuracy matters. If the school says to do something, It grades you based on if you accomplished it. Yes, We can exceptions to disabled people, But in general, The school can grade the students. That's how it works for other subjects anyways. "It can't. They can't just not grade a whole subject, And most teachers are apparently too retarded to understand that some people have problems with art, And it isn't something you can ' study ' about ( well you can but it's time confusing )"Yes they can not grade a whole subject. It's called many things but for example, Learning disability support. A student can be exempt from subjects, Put in a special class. But for the rest of the kids, It's the same normal grading system. Maybe teachers in your school d
The United States military should be significantly reduced in size and scope.

It is my contention that the U. S. military should be substantially reduced in size and scope. This includes the number of personnel, goals and overall military spending. The military shall refer to every branch of the armed forces, and a significant reduction would equal about a 1/3 cut in funding. The U. S. military budget is $756.4 billion for FY 2015. As such, I will be arguing that it should be around $500 billion. . http://useconomy.about.com... My opponent will be arguing that we should "support our troops" by either maintaining our current military spend, or spending more than $500 billion to ensure sufficient protection for both military personnel and civilian security. Although I am an anarchist, I will be arguing from the perspective that the U. S. military should exist and be federally funded through taxes to avoid any tangents about the proper role and responsibility of government (though I'm sure that will be a factor in the debate, I don't want to be arguing from the position of anarchism as I think that would deter from the overall quality and discussion). I'd like to wish my opponent luck. I will provide my opening arguments in R2. Con is free to use R1 for introductory notes, or to begin their case early if they so choose.
Should Taiwan declare independence

At first, like my opponent, believed that ROC should declare formal independence, and be free to play a part in international international affairs. Over time my opinion change on the matter. I now believe that the ROC should maintain the status quo, and reunify with China only if when the PRC makes significant democratic reforms. 1: The ROC could not defeat the PLA without serious repercussions. In accordance with the anti-secession law, if Taiwan declares independence, China will use non-peaceful means to reunify Taiwan with the mainland. Given the small size of Taiwan, and it's distance to the mainland, any war with China would most likely prove disastrous. Reasons include...Army Size- Given China's large army in relation to the ROCA, any successful landing on the island would inflict massive damage. It's small size would allow the PLA to bomb nearly anywhere they choose. The casualties from such a invasion would be enormous.Navy and Air force Strength- The PRC has a huge navy and air force compared to the ROC. The PLA navy could easily surround and blockade all of Taiwan using only a fraction of there fleet. The size of there navy and air force will allow them to shell or bomb any area of Taiwan. Even if the ROC won the war, the damages would have long term effects. http://www.nationmaster.com...http://www.nationmaster.com...2: Things are working the way they are. A popular phrase is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This ties in perfectly with this situation. Taiwan is currently self governing with a growing economy. The only thing declaring independence would change is inciting the wrath of China. 3: Taiwan has no allies. Taiwan has hardly any formal relations with other countries. They are only recognized by a couple of Caribbean and Central American countries. They also can't appeal to the UN as they are not a member. Even if they were, China would use it's veto powers. http://www.mac.gov.tw...
Should Taiwan declare independence

You bring up basically the main problems with "declaring independence" but what about UN recognition? Would that count as declaring independance and why/why not??? The ROC cannot receive UN recognition as China exercises veto powers. It has been tried and failed. This would not count as full independence for many countries. It is obvious that Taiwan could not defeat China "toe to toe" but as I understand, America & Japan would step in on their behalf making quick work of a Chinese offensive (or defensive). China is no where near American military power and Japan would not even have to step foot inside the country because of it
Should Taiwan declare independence

You bring up basically the main problems with "declaring independence" but what about UN recognition? Would that count as declaring independance and why/why not??? It is obvious that Taiwan could not defeat China "toe to toe" but as I understand, America & Japan would step in on their behalf making quick work of a Chinese offensive (or defensive). China is no where near American military power and Japan would not even have to step foot inside the country because of it. The other option Taiwan has militarily is to fight a guerrilla war agianst mainland China. Believe it or not they would have the upper hand given the structure of China's dictatorship. A few snipers and suicide bombers would change everything. They would have a vast underground consisting of Academia, rural poor, religous, Tibetans and everyone else disenfranchised by the Regime. "If it aint broke dont fix it". This is your strongest argument. China has changed to a certain degree and perhaps it will transition into something more "democratic". Taiwan on the other hand seems to be doing fine in its ambiguous existence, however, this IS a broken picture and needs be fixed somehow.
Transformers: Revenge of the fallen wasn't as good as the original

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen . http://en.wikipedia.org... Transformers: Original . http://en.wikipedia.org... I have to prove that the Revenge of the Fallen (RotF) was better than the Original to win. 1) The special effects/ graphics are much better in RotF. 2) The Original was animated, which was boring. 3) The cast is much better in RotF. 4) RotF is PG13, while the Original is PG. PG13 allows for much more action, violence, and sexuality. 5) RotF has Megan Fox, one of the sexiest woman on Earth according to Maxim. .. and many men. 6) Michael Bay is the director of RotF, widely considered to be one of the best directors of big-budget action films. 6) Steven Spielberg is the executive producer of RotF, widely considered to be the best ever. 7) RotF took in $108.9 million in the first weekend, the Original took in $5 million in the opening weekend. 8) RotF is available in IMAX, the Original is not. 9) RotF has a video game, the Original does not. 10) RotF is going to have a sequel, the Original did not. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Transformers: Revenge of the fallen wasn't as good as the original

The 2007 Transformers movie was not the original. The 1986 Transformers movie was the original. original - preceding all others in time or being as first made or performed The debate is about the 1986 movie vs the 2009 movie, not the 2007 movie vs the 2009 movie. Although, I do agree with you on the matter that the RotF was not as good as the 2007 movie.
Transformers: Revenge of the fallen wasn't as good as the original

First of all, let me clarify a bit as the resolution may have been unclear. Transformers : Revenge of the fallen is a sequel to the 2007 transformers movie, which is what I was referring to. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film) Before I move on I will counter your arguments. 1) About the same. 2) Live action and CGI like ROTF. 3) Same cast (actually better because it had anthony anderson , jon voight, bernie mac, frenzy, blackout, barricade, bonecrusher, and jazz) 4) Both PG-13. 5) Megan Fox here too :) 6) Same here. 7) That was because of the original, and the original has made over $700 million. 8) Same here. 9) Same here. 10) ROTF is the originals sequel, and it was terrible. Now for my arguments 1. Storyline ROTF was a completely made up terrible storyline. First of all, Megatron apparently isn't the leader of the decipticons as this new 'the fallen' guy comes along. Wow, the title had me thinking for a moment that 'the fallen' was referring to the defeated decipticons, but to actually have a guy come out of nowhere and that is his actual name is rediculous. Also, this guy keeps trying to take over our sun. Why? Why not move to another star? So all along if this guy knew where earth was then earth wasn't unknown. Then why didn't the decipticons take advantage and already conquer it? What the hell did they need the cube for if all they needed was energon? This story made practically no sense. 2. Disrespect to fan base. We all know that although transformers has been around since the '80's and a lot of the fans are big boys now, there's still a great deal of children that are new to the transformers experience. You wonder then, was all the language, rounchiness, and rude remarks really necessary? I mean who the hell do you think are playing with these action figures? Promiscuous college students who swear all the time? No, little kids, who don't need to be exposed to all of that. Now I'm not saying that I'm against a little bit of language, rounchiness, or dirty cracks; I actually prefer a bit of spice. However, too much burns your tongue and ruins the experience. This movie had instances of every cuss word except for 'f-unny d-uck'. It had that completely weird and uncalled for human/female/whore/transformer, and it had jokes I found racist and offensive (those two ignorant twins who where mocking black people, talking about how they didn't read). Rediculous. 3. Reviews Rotten tomatoes said that the original got 57% of favorable reviews while ROTF got 21%. Roger ebert gave the original 3 stars while he gave the sequel only 1 star. On the 'at the movies' show both critics said "See it" to the original transformers, and "Skip it" to its sequel. That ought to be enough said. This move p-oorly m-issed me off.