BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible tells real accounts

No offence, but you really shouldn't use the words "scientifically possible". There is absolutely no way that a scientist would take you seriously if you walked in and said "Two of every animal was carried on a big boat to escape a flood that was brought upon us by a man in the sky!" Also, it is not scientifically possible, as well... let's be logical here. If there were only two of each animal, wouldn't all the animals be horribly mutated due to inbreeding? To have babies we need variation, and if there isn't any variation, the offspring could end up disabled. Plus, there were predators and prey on that ship. All the predators would have eaten the small animals. Also, there are over 6,000,000 different types of bug, and most animals are scattered all over the planet, so how could Noah have gathered all these animals in such a short time? There were no planes, and a boat journey would take a long time to go right across the earth. Plus, back then America hadn't even been discovered, so how could he have gotten all the animals unique to America? Also, "Roman accounts"? Yes, there are accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but how do you know these were accurate? Some random guy could have come along and made it all up. Same thing with the Bible, except a group of people instead of one person. So as you can see, your argument is flawed. Are there any other examples you would like to bring forward?
The Bible tells real accounts

Ok. Please note that I am in no way trying to offend you or your religion, but this is my argument.So you mean to tell me that every story in the Bible is true, including the ones that most Christians themselves say are simply telling you how to act, such as the Parable of the Lost Son or the Lost Sheep? Parables are not supposed to be real accounts, so that's on part of the Bible that is false. Most Christians I know don't believe that Noah's Ark ever happened, and that it is simply a story telling you to be nice to others so that good things happen to you, instead of being sinful and being drowned. I think the Bible is just a big book of morals, and that it is just telling you to be a nice person.Even as an Atheist, I think that the Bible is a good book to teach you life lessons from, but there are few people that take every story litereally.
Video Games increase child violence

Thank you for your response. It is certainly interesting. First, I have no idea where my opponent is coming up with his "increased blood flow" claim, I do not see anywhere in my sources where it mentions this. Also scientists do not make anything up. These are valid studies in which I have shown that show a correlation between increased violence among children and video games together, based on study and evidence. Scientists DO NOT and CANNOT sub in made up information wherever they want. Therefore my opponents claim that: "People's thinking is like so: Oh, tests (I'm talking about EEG experiment method) shown that the kids that play video games (violent ones actually) have increased blood flow in the part of the brain associated with copycat activities, therefore they become more aggressive and prone to copy actions from a violent video game." is an invalid claim here as I am dealing with real experiments conducted by scientists. Also I would like to point out that my opponent shows absolutely no sources to back up his claim whereas my argument is solely built on cited sources. My opponent shows an extreme fallacy by trying to make a claim that he knows kids that play violent video games but who aren't violent. This argument is invalid on many levels. He has given absolutely no evidence or source to back up this claim and it does absolutely nothing to attempt to disprove that "video games increase child violence". My opponent then tries to make an argument that I have done my research but haven't really understood what the tests have shown. I have understood the tests perfectly and have made valid claims based on the results of the tests. Again my opponent has done no such thing. Again my opponent uses a complete straw-man argument by 1st manipulating the argument to fit his desire. For example the actual line I used in my argument is "teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers". My opponent manipulated this line into "people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher". A complete and unfair manipulation of my argument. My opponent then made another complete fallacy by claiming that people from his school who play video games turn out to be less aggressive than the ones that do not play video games. Lastly my opponent claims that people "don't get aggressive because of playing violent video games" but he again has given absolutely zero references to back up this claim, or any other of his claims. All in all I don't feel con has really attempted to try and make a strong case for his stance at all. He has merely just tried to refute my sources, with absolutely no back up, references, cited sources etc.
Video Games increase child violence

In the first two examples, the experiments showed increased blood flow in the certain parts of the brain that are associated with copycat activities. Blood flow to a certain part of the brain does not necessarily mean anything at all. People's thinking is like so: Oh, tests (i'm talking about EEG experiment method) shown that the kids that play video games (violent ones actually) have increased blood flow in the part of the brain associated with copycat activities, therefor they become more aggressive and prone to copy actions from a violent video game. Wrong. Increased blood flow, as any doctor will tell you is a very broad category, and thus can we not be sure. Also, let me confirm that i know people that play violent video games, and i mean violent video games, no such as Mario and Call of Duty, and wouldn't hurt a fly in their lives. I think that brings this argument to an end. You've done some research, but you haven't really understood what these tests have shown. Especially in the second one, there's a line that says that people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher or so. Actually, the people from my school that play video games turn out to be less aggressive than the ones that do play video games. What can happen is if a guy that is really violent or aggressive plays video games. It's more likely, and official tests have shown this too, that people don't get more aggressive because of playing violent video games, but actually guys that are more aggressive are attracted more to violent video games. It all comes down to what a person likes. Sorry for my late response, i was busy for the last 2 days.
Video Games increase child violence

Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book "Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.
Childcare should be free

Rebuttal 1. Some people do not want to go to work after having a baby they want to stay home and care for the child. Free childcare would mean that it would pressure mothers to go back to work I propose that: rather than have a free system it would be far better to stay with our current system where childcare is subsidised according to the amount the family earns. This would be a progressive system, in the same way that Australia"s tax system is. This is a much fairer system and not open to as much abuse as a free for all option. It means that it is available to everyone but at a cost that is reasonable and affordable. My first point is about the huge cost of making childcare free If the government provides something for free, someone has to pay for it. Consequently taxes increase which means everyone who earns money has to pay for the free child care. Even those people who will never have children will be contributing towards the free care. Added to this when a government chooses to subsidise a service it often means other services suffer, and therefore it would be likely that important departments, such as health and education suffer. There is another flow on from the increased taxes to pay for the free child care; it will stop many new businesses from forming and will force marginal ones to close down, causing job losses. Higher taxes will mean less business activity will result and there will be lower productivity. My second point is that Free is often abused Making a service free can cause many problems. According to a paper published by Cambridge University, "people overreact to free products, consumers take much more of a product when it is free than they buy of the product even when it has a very low price". Making childcare free may cause people who do not really need the service to use and abuse it because it is free. This will then result in overcrowding and put an added strain on the service. And of course this would lead to a need for more centres, resulting in additional costs. If the system becomes overflowed then everyone will end up worse off because the service will become inefficient and the quality will decline.
Childcare should be free

Thanks for the debate! Wish it had more rounds but it should be fun none-the-less. Because the debate is only two rounds long, I will hold my rebuttals for the second round. In addition, I will not address your rebuttals in the second round for the sake of fairness. Good luck! 1. A system with free childcare allows the parents to hold full-time jobs and even continue a small life outside of their child. While it is important for adults to have children, having them creates a massive economic and social burden on the parents. The cost of maintaining a kid is exponential and requires a lot of time. Because of the high time requirement, it is fairly common for one parent to quit their job and stay at home. This means there are even less available funds within the family creating even more financial stress. In addition, the parents often devote almost all, if not the entirety of their time to their child to help it grow severing them from any social life making them less functional because they are no longer fulfilling a basic human need of interaction with others. A single impact can be drawn from these two sub-points: the lack of free childcare creates parents in bad social and economic situations which is a drain on society. 2. Childcare is too expensive otherwise. This service can often run around $10,000 to $15,000 a year for just one kid. This is a huge amount and often unbearable for families and single parents. The middle class is shrinking everyday and the upper class will be available to afford it no matter what leaving the lower class for discussion. The amount listed above is an exponentially high number for a family that is lucky to even make $40,000 a year not to mention the lower earning ability of single parents. The impact of this point is more and more kids won't be in childcare which leads me to my third point. 3. Childcare is a dependable stimulant for children. I mean this in two ways. The first is the social aspect for the child. There are often many other children in attendance allowing for it to start developing social skills at a very early age. Kids and adults in the future will have better communication skills as a result of this. Secondly, childcare centers often provide educational stimulants for the child in the form of books, toys, and more. All children will have a significant head start allowing teachers to take on tougher curriculum at a younger age ultimately creating a more intelligent society.
Childcare should be free

1. If childcare was made free a lot more children would attend as shown by our first speaker. And as a consequence when children are exposed to a large number of other children for some time it provides the opportunity for infectious diseases to spread. According to the National Health and Medical Research Council, "The typical daycare center...spreads far more infection and communicable disease than than any other institution ." Therefore if more children attend the incidence of childhood diseases will inevitably arise. More illness, means more parents will need to take time off of work to look after the child. Constant absences can affect the workplace and the job security of the adult. More illness, can also mean more communicable diseases will be spread throughout the community. 3. Another important point regarding the social implications of free child care is that social skills in children will diminish because parents won't have the time to teach them. For example in Norway and Sweden, where 92 per cent of all children attend childcare, they are now experiencing huge social issues, which have been attributed to a lack of parental guidance. They are seeing unprecedented levels of youth violence, suicide and depression; stressed parents; lower quality parental relationships; high divorce rates and high absenteeism from paid work.
Animal Testing

Point 5: Law protects this Due to animal testing is so regulated, it is completely protected by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Scientists aren’t taking random animals from the wild and go straight to their lab. They must first get their testing idea approved by an Institutional Animal Care and use Committee (IACUC). Also the AWA regulates that the experiments are to be inspected by a veterinarian regularly. In fact all institution funding comes from the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), but must comply to the policy of the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Also groups who regulate animals in research must get a license with the USDA and facilities with regulated animals must be inspected yearly by APHIS. There are at least 115 inspectors from theUSDA. http://www.neavs.org... http://animal-testing.procon.org...
Animal Testing

Testing on animals may lead researchers to ignore potential cures. There are some chemicals that are harmful to the animals being tested on but they are vulnerable to humans, such as Aspirin. Animal bodies are different than human bodies. even though chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA as homo-sapiens they are unaffected by AIDS and Hepatitis B which are two diseases that kill humans yearly. The experiments on animals can mislead the researchers or even contribute to sickness or death by failing to predict the toxic effects of the drug. Sources: http://www.animal-testing.procon.org... http://www.animalaid.org.uk... http://www.indiana.edu...
Animal Testing

Point 4: Animals also benefit Testing on animals most definitely benefited animals as well, for like rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus would have killed millions of animals. Animals like the California condor, the Tamarins of Brazil, and the black-footed ferret were saved from extinction due to animal testing. The koala species of Australia are endangered and suffer from the spread of the sexual disease chlamydia, right now tests on animals are being done today to help slow down or even stop the extinction the koalas. Testing like this helps pets, livestock, zoo animals to live longer, healthier, and happier. If it weren’t for animal testing, your dog could have been diagnosed with heartworms (and infection painful and deadly for dogs). Since multiple animals, who are genetically similar, are being tested both that animal and humans will be able to live a longer, happier, and most of all a healthier life. Which can also prevent some species going to extinction.http://animal-testing.procon.org...http://www.nap.edu...https://apbiostoga.wikispaces.com...
Animal Testing

Over 100 million animals are killed each year after testing including: mice, rats, frogs,dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys. Before testing animals are often forced to inhale toxic fumes, be restrained for testing, have holes drilled into their skull, have skin burned, or have the spinal chord crushed.In the United States 1.23million non-human primates are used in testing, and if calculated over 28,457 of those animals are killed each year http://www.peta.org...
Animal Testing

Point 3: Animals are most similar to human beings in any ways Every mammal (including human beings) are descendants of common ancestors, therefore have all the same organs. Considering that, chimpanzees are 99% genetically similar to humans, while mice are actually 98% similar. Since they are so similar genetically they can catch the same diseases and conditions. This is due to the fact that the organs of chimpanzees have essentially the same functions. We are also very similar to bananas but technically they do not have working organs like humans to, therefore testing is only ethical on living animals themselves (those of which who are similar to us humans). http://animal-testing.procon.org...
Animal Testing

94% of all drugs that passed in animal testing failed in human clinical trials. Over 100 stroke drugs did not work in humans. Therefore the tests do not provide accurate research. Over 85 HIV vaccines that passed non-human primates testing failed in humans. Along with the low predictability in the animal testing and research areas has allowed a direct comparison between mice and human beings. The data causes doubt about the predictability on human saftey which causes more doubt on the effectiveness of animal data testing. animal-testing.procon.org Round 1 sources: animal-testing.procon.org neavs.org/research/harm-suffering
Animal Testing

Point 2: NO adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system. Living human being and animal systems are very complex, therefore cells in a petri dish can not relate to the processes happening within the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Testing a drug for their side effects can only be done within a circulatory system carrying the drug to other organs. Including conditions like blindness and high blood pressure aren"t very testable on a piece of tissue cell in a petri dish. Considering someone might suggest using computer models, but how can you have computer models without research upon the idea from the beginning to even create the computer model. In retrospect even super computers cannot create experiment models without the accurate and complete information in the first place. http://animal-testing.procon.org...
Animal Testing

Point 1: Cures and Treatments The California Biochemical Research Associates pronounced that almost every discovery in medicine within the last 100 years have been resulted from animal testing. For example the discovery of insulin was resulted from dogs getting their pancreases removed. Due to polio vaccines being tested on animals the world occurrence of polio reduced from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases by 2012. "We wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis c without chimpanzees," stated the Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center"s animal research facility. There are lots of other animal testing labs that help find cures and treatment such as; stroke from clot retrieving devices, childhood blindness by finding a certain enzyme that are in humans in mice, radiation therapy on mice help treat cancer, and much more situations. Therefore if it weren't for the exposition of animal testing many people today would have diseases and conditions that are yet untreated for. Also considering that not a whole lot of animals are being tested on, only very few compared to their population number, few animal tests can fail, but after a few it will result in treating millions of humans and animals. http://animal-testing.procon.org... http://newsroom.ucla.edu...
Animal Testing

Animal testing costs the government millions to billions of dollars. Twin-species life time cancer study can cost from 2 to 4 million dollars. An unscheduled DNA synthesis animal test can cost 32,000 dollars while a Vitro Alternative test only costs 11,000 dollars. The United States National Institution of Health (NIH) spends 14 billion of its 31 billion dollar budget on animal testing. Sources: http://animal-testing.procon.org...
The Five-Second Rule is Real

Sadly con has decided not to continue this debate (or simply concede), even while being active elsewhere in this site. Conclusion: The rule is clearly real, there has not even been claims to contest such; merely a couple poorly executed assertions as to how reliable it is. Further when not dealing with any mad scientist intentionally spreading lab grade germs around, there are proven health benefits to low dose germ exposure. People should eat briefly floored food items more often. Voting Suggestions: CONDUCT: Pro (me), due to forfeitures. S&G (spelling and grammar): Tied. While it leans in my favor, not by enough to claim the point (everything but argument should be by a noteworthy margin, such as things which distracted from the argument someone made). ARGUMENTS: Pro, no contest. SOURCES: Pro, as my sources were on topic and presented a strong case in favor of my side. Further none of my sources were challenged, and I ruthlessly shot down all of con’s.