BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal testing should be banned.

Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day"s work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. Here are the top five reasons why it needs to stop: It"s unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. It"s bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. It"s wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. It"s archaic. Forward-thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests. The world doesn"t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals" lives.
The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds

"My evidence is my life."There is no way of me knowing if you are lying or not and therefore personal experience is not considered as sufficient evidence."There is a lot of truth in this stereotype. I know many teenagers that view politics as a joke." You may know many teenagers but you do not know all teenagers and if you did only then would you be allowed to make that claim without evidence from a source. As I mentioned previously, person experience is not enough alone to justify your arguments - especially in these sort of debates. "Really? Well in my school we don't study politics at all. It's not very academic and actual school subjects like Math and Language Arts should be put first." I never said that they should be put before maths and language arts. I merely stated that it is an important subject and people do learn it in schools. You cannot assume that all 15 year olds know nothing about politics and who they are voting for.
The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds

(Side note: I am from the US, so I don't know much about U.K. politics.) "How do you know? You haven't provided any evidence to support this claim, have you? " My evidence is my life. "Now, I'm sure that both me and you know that this is a stereotype without any evidence that argument is easily refuted." There is a lot of truth in this stereotype. I know many teenagers that view politics as a joke. "Politics is extremely important for when they grow up. In my school they made me study politics until I was done with my GSCE (15 years old). Really? Well in my school we don't study politics at all. It's not very academic and actual school subjects like Math and Language Arts should be put first.
The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds

"Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting."Like what? I cannot respond unless you can provide examples and I am sure that they can't be too busy to decide who will govern their country for the next 4 years (UK). I personally cannot think of any normal activity a 15 year old would have that voting could get in the way of. Yes, exams are important but there is no point in doing well in exams if you cannot afford to go to university. "many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. "Now, I'm sure that both me and you know that this is a stereotype without any evidence that argument is easily refuted. "15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving." Adult have work that they actually get paid for and they seem to manage. It is also incredibly beneficial because they get a say in the education department of voting. Adults wont necessarily focus in on that as much as children may want them to. They are no longer a child so it does not effect them as much it would effect a child voting. As I have said in my first rebuttal, deciding who governs your country for the next 4 years is not an insignificant thing and most 15 year olds will acknowledge this."They should not be worrying about politics." Politics is extremely important for when they grow up. In my school they made me study politics until I was done with my GSCE (15 years old). When you leave school you are new and unfamiliar with the world. You cannot walk into modern society and not know the difference between left wing and right wing; labor or conservative - that wouldn't be right. Assuming you get a job with no relation to politics (because not everyone does) how are you going to learn the difference between the two. How are you going to know what each party stands for? " Other ones will not take it seriously! " How do you know? You haven't provided any evidence to support this claim, have you?
The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds

Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting. Also, many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. 15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving. They should not be worrying about politics. Some 15 year olds will be too young to understand! Other ones will not take it seriously! 15 years old is simply too young of a age to start voting. I apologize that my agrument is extremely short-- but it gets all my ideas across well.
The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds

Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance.The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).I wish my opponent very good luck and look forward to a fun and spirited discussion!R1 is acceptance and optional definitions.
Paying Higher Taxes is Patriotic

"Well its really pretty simple, taxes are funds that are collected by the government, and represent part of the social contract that all people agree to when they choose to live in the United States. The social contract is that one would be willing to have some of their rights abridged to a degree, for the common protection and benefit of society. " Agreed, but some of the stuff the government supports doesn't "benefit society". "Anyway, taxes are used to support the government. The greater amount of tax collected, the more the government is supported. Supporting the government is patriotic, because by supporting it, you are helping it remain in existence and prosper. Therefore, paying higher taxes is patriotic. " True, but our government can suppot us with less money. We can deal without useless programs that help minimal amounts of people and don't work. Also, where does most of that money go? If it was for the military I would be happy or for other useful programs. I will use social secruity for example. Lets say I give $1 to the government and it goes to social security, where my nieghbor gets that dollar, because he's too lazy to work. How am I being patriotic? Or it goes to some senator's huge paycheck? How is that for the good of the country? "My opponent missed a major element of why the revolutionaries desired for a new government to be created. Its because they didn't have any representation in Parliament. If proper representation were granted to the English Colonies, history would be very different. So basically, it wasn't the taxes that bothered them so much, but rather the fact that they had no say over the levying of taxes. Regardless of what the founding fathers would think of the potentially different tax rates, they would certainly not find it unpatriotic, because they would find that their developed system of voting for elected officials would still be in place. " Yes, but the basis of the orginal government was to give everyone freedom. It wasn't the governments responsibilty to pay for other people's lazyness or health care. It was all about getting people to work hard so they didn't need the government, so then taxes would be very minimal. Patriotic is a meaning from patriotism, which means Main Entry: paï¿½triï¿½otï¿½ism : love for or devotion to one's country . http://www.merriam-webster.com... So what I'm saying is that how is supporting your neighbor or paying someone else's heating bill or health care showing love or devotion to the country? I could do all that without the government, its just acting as a middle man.
Paying Higher Taxes is Patriotic

Good Afternoon Chevy10294, I come here today to argue that paying higher taxes is patriotic. Well its really pretty simple, taxes are funds that are collected by the government, and represent part of the social contract that all people agree to when they choose to live in the United States. The social contract is that one would be willing to have some of their rights abridged to a degree, for the common protection and benefit of society. Anyway, taxes are used to support the government. The greater amount of tax collected, the more the government is supported. Supporting the government is patriotic, because by supporting it, you are helping it remain in existence and prosper. Therefore, paying higher taxes is patriotic. To refute, My opponent missed a major element of why the revolutionaries desired for a new government to be created. Its because they didn't have any representation in Parliament. If proper representation were granted to the English Colonies, history would be very different. So basically, it wasn't the taxes that bothered them so much, but rather the fact that they had no say over the levying of taxes. Regardless of what the founding fathers would think of the potentially different tax rates, they would certainly not find it unpatriotic, because they would find that their developed system of voting for elected officials would still be in place. Basically, all Americans have a say on how they wished to be taxed, which they can express officially through voting, or through placing pressure on public officials and gathering support for ones position on taxation. If a person really doesn't like the way they are taxed, they are permitted to leave the country. Thats really about it. Yeah.
Paying Higher Taxes is Patriotic

This is a debate over weather Sen. Biden was wrong or not if paying higher taxes is patriotic.(http://news.yahoo.com...) I believe that he was wrong when he says this statement and that if we were to paying lower taxes it would be more patriotic. Why is it unpatriotic? In the 1700's, the founding fathers of the United States came together to try and breakaway from Great Britain. One reason they did this was due to the fact that they felt their taxes were too high and wanted less government control. Then, when GB instituted the Tea Tax, men came together to empty the tea, so they wouldn't have to pay those taxes. Our government was built on low taxes and limited government control, so that if the founding fathers were around now, they would think that higher taxes is unpatriotic. I am going to allow my oppnent try and prove why high taxes is patriot before I submit my full argument.
The Incredible Hulk versus Spider man in a climax fight.

I have desicided to choose a more light hearted debate. I am the pro for the hulk. The hulk has always been my favorite comic character. But spider man is also pretty cool. With the hulks super strenght I would like to think that the hulk would win easily against spider man. I have looked for information on the "web" ha. To find which super power would be more usful in battle. On ign.com spider man wins the most votes of the best super hero: incredible. Ok so the size of the hulk is huge, 10 feet or more and spider man is only a average height of 5ft 8 I would suggest. Like most battles, the more taller and stronger one is, one will win in any circumstance. Spider mans web shot could not with hold the strength of the hulk. In my strict opinion, I would say spider man would be like a scraberling skinny play ground fists swinging fighter against the hulk, also consider the great amount of body mass the hulk has probably weighing around a ton and a half. Yes spider man has strength and could show come cool combos moves against the hulk. Evermore it would take either a very hard punch or a load of hits in the head to take down the hulk. Has spider man ever been up against the US army? Or has the Incredible Hulk? Although I do like spider man, I just think the hulk could win in a fight. One punch in spider mans gut and hes is down! Ok thanks. Hope is debate can be a bit of a laugh, unlike the rest I have done.
The Bible and God disagrees with Gay Marriage

1st Round: Opening Arguments 2nd, 3rd, 4th Round: Rebuttals 5th Round: Conclusions I know my opponent is a Christian who -believes in God -believes in the Trinity -believes in the Bible But he is also quite picky about what to take literally, metaphorically, and truthfully in the Bible. His way of "believing" in the Bible is rare and difficult to figure (and I hope he will make his position clear when he posts arguments). I will argue that the Bible contradicts what he believes with gay marriage. He will rebut. Then I will refute some of what he thinks which I think is wrong, etc. etc. OPENING ARGUMENTS: The Bible gives many specific references to same-sex marriage, explaining why it is 1) wrong, and 2) a temptation of the Devil. The best books to look to are Genesis, located in the Old Testament, and Ephesians which is found in the New Testament. Firstly, both my opponent and I agree that God created us. We get this from the Bible's first book, Genesis, because we are Christians and have relationships with Christ. Even most science agrees with the creation story...! But where we split ways is when we both interpret HOW and WHY God created us. My interpretation, as some may disagree or agree with, is that mankind was created (from the start) as instruments of praise, or as people who would 'keep God company.' This leads to the point, on the 6th day of creation, when He created MAN and WOMAN. [1] Does my opponent not realize that, having accepted the Bible true, he also accepts that God intended reproduction for only male and female? If he did this, why would He agree with humans marrying in a way that you COULDN'T perform reproduction? [2] Besides figuring the common sense, we can dig deeper and find that there are verses in the Bible that specifically say marriage is only for one man and one woman. There are plenty of reasons why this, also, is plain common sense too: the main reason being that reproduction itself can't happen with same-sex marriage. God made the other sex/gender BECAUSE he wanted us to multiply and fill the earth. [1] SOURCES [1] http://biblehub.com.... [2] http://www.christiananswers.net....
The Bible and God disagrees with Gay Marriage

You say my statement is false. Let me repeat what you said yet again: "The problem with your statement about marriage is that you said there is no justification that divorce rates of Chiristians are high." Since it is wrong, please tell me what the justification for Christian divorces, is? I said that there is no justification. To me, no divorce in history has a good enough justification. But also, because marriage is such a common and unserious thing nowadays, it happens a lot without second thoughts. Suddenly two people who aren't right for each other are married; divorce is the only option! To me, this is still no justification. My opponent has the Burden of Proof. Then my opponent goes on to say that his dad divorced many times, tries to say that divorce is not corruption, it's life, and in life there will be emotional problems. He says, "People in your family die and that's going to make kids in the family cry and have emotional problems. It's life." First of all, divorce is a growing problem in America. In 1920, 14% of marriages ended with divorces. In the 70s' until now, it has been about 50% of all marriages ending in divorce. The Bible says that God hates divorce. (This is another reason America has been turning away from God, as my opponent and I have been discussing and arguing through messages recently. He thinks America is not growing farther away, while I oppose that hypothesis.) Matt. 19:9 says, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." [1] As I said earlier in this debate, if gay marriage promotes divorce than I believe that the Bible and God disagree with it. "...there is the lifestyle of being gay, but then just being gay, in a relationship, which grows into a family and marriage, is not a sin whatsoever. I highly doubt you even know what a lifestyle is." The definition of 'lifestyle': the way in which a person or group lives. [2] I know what it is, and I think that this is an irrelevant argument because we both agree that being 'gay' is a way a person or group, lives. But I'm going to say that you are arguing this: a same-sex relationship is not a sin according to the Bible. You think that the lifestyle is a sin...? This is unclear. But we have been debating this the whole time so I think I'll go on. SOURCES [1] http://carm.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] [4]
atheists don't have objective morals

Enable for Christians to have objective morals, objective morals must first exist- and enable for objective morals to exist, they must exist separate from any supreme being, as, if morality is defined as the decrees of a supreme being and has no substantiation aside from this, then morality would merely be the opinions of said supreme being, and thus, subjective- not objective. Therefore, if objective morality does exist, and it does, then it would be evident to all, and would not require a holy book enable to determine. My opponent has attempted to prove that atheists have no objective morals, while Christians do; because Christians have the bible while atheists have no official moral code. This theory is riddled with flawes in every step of its logic:Firstly, it makes the assumption that objective morality can come from a book, but as I stated before, if morality exists no further than the opinionated decrees and mandates in a book, it is not objective- but subjective, as it is founded entirely on opinions. Secondly, any atheist could simply adopt a moral code of some sort that is not the bible, they could become confucians, for example, and base their morals on the Analects. Thirdly, if morality is objective, as Einstein once said, it must exist separate from a supreme being- so Christian morals cannot be objctive, as they are entirely dependant on a supreme being. Fourthly, the bible is not the word of God- this is mere unsubstantiated claims backed entirely by "faith," it's like fiat currency- it's worthless because there's nothing behind it.
atheists don't have objective morals

Again. Christian morals cannot be opinionated because their morals come from a specific source. The bible was created by people who still believed in a God. Specifically the same God. The people that wrote the bible still didn't write it based on opinion they believed that they got their source of morality from an OBJECTIVE and ABSOLUTE TRUTHful God. They still had an objective source as to where they got their morals, then wrote it all down. They didn't just think. "Hey, I think killing is wrong so I'll write it down" It was more like "killing is wrong because God said it was wrong" You see? Still an objective source. I don't think it really matters if that objective moral source contradicts it's self or not, it's still an objective morality. Let's ASSUME that the Bible actually DID contradict it's self and said something like "do not kill" and then said "killing is fine". If you were to ask a Christian what do you think about killing EVERY SINGLE ONE would say "well killing is wrong but it's also the right thing to do, BECAUSE that's what's written in the bible, it's God's word" even though their objective morality is contradictory they wouldn't be contradicting THEMSELVES. They still have an objective source as to where they got their contracdictive morals. It still wouldn't really be an opinion to them. If you were to do the same with atheist, they'd all have different opinions on killing they'd disagree amongst each other. There's no absolute truth in atheistic morals. It's all based on opinions. Alright. Your arguments about bible contradictions are a little off topic, but I'll play along. 1. That was never a contradiction. I'm positive that God meant for US not to sacrifice our actual sons for rituals. The pagans and other idol worshipers were notorious for things like that. When Jesus said that he was the son of God he never actually meant God's actual son, because Jesus himself was God in human form. The son the father and the Holy spirit are all one being. Which is the God of Abraham. 2. No contradiction there. Your not reading these in context. Numbers talks about how we're already BORN INTO SIN. It talks about the long lasting effects of sin. Num 14:18 The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation. Ezekiel talks about the individual responsibility of sin. Ezekiel 18 20 The soul who sins shall die."The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son."The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself,"and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. You see...everyone is born into sin, but we won't be judged based off the sins that someone else committed. People can also ask for forgiveness and accept Christ so ALL sins can be forgiven. See? No contradiction. Oh btw. If you're going to a verse try to quote the WHOLE thing. Don't quote like 3 or 4 words and then take everything out of context. It's a little dishonest
atheists don't have objective morals

Objective morality doesn't contradict itself- atheist opinions on morality can, but like I said before, this is no diferent in Christianity. The Christian moral code, the bible, is merely the opinions of multiple humans that contradict, so ultimately nothing is different- it contradicts itself on virtually every occasion. Here are a few examples of this:1. The bible says that it is an abomination for a father to offer up his son as a human sacrafice (Deuteronomy 12:31), yet you worship a God that offered up his son as a human sacrafice (John 3:16), and praise him for it (Romans 5:8)- while criticizing the ancient Israelites for doing the exact same thing. 2. The bible says that God punishes the sons for the sins of the fathers (Numbers 14:18), but later says that the sons shall not die for the sins of the fathers, but that everyone will be punished for his/her own sins (Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 30:29)I could go on, but I think I made my point.