BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fur is murder.

Con's rebuttal of Pro's r1 argument.Definition of murder " noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" [2]The common definition of murder is to kill another human being. Searching on the internet fur comes from foxes. [3]."The most farmed fur-bearing animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchillas, lynxes, and even hamsters are also farmed for their fur" [4].Mink, foxes, chinchillas, lynxes, and hamsters are not human. Unless the fur industry starts using killing humans for their skin and selling human skins, fur is not murder. Since, the animals used for fur are not human thus killing an animal for fur does not fit the definition of murder. "Hunting fur just for profit is illegal and immoral. If the hunter has the means to replenish the particular species completely, then he can openly hunt for fur. But that's not the case." ProI wasn't even thinking of hunting. Most furs comes from factory farms. "Eighty-five percent of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive on fur factory farms."[4]. More to the point, causing the death of animal is not the definition of murder. By definition Con's argument is correct. Links2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://www.fursource.com...4. http://www.oipa.org...
Fur is murder.

Fur IS murder. I would agree with you that fur is not murder if they sustainably hunted animals for fur. Or even when they need other parts of the particular animal. But when animals are targeted for fur, without using their meat or any other body parts, just for profit, is unnecessary and IS murder. Who eats cheetah meat? Who eats tiger or bear or wolf meat? Unless for the odd locals?? Hunting fur just for profit is illegal and immoral. If the hunter has the means to replenish the particular species completely, then he can openly hunt for fur. But that's not the case.
Fur is murder.

Structurer1. Arguments, pro makes pro's argument and con makes con's argument.r2. Rebuttals, pro rebuts con's r1 argument and con rebuts pro's r1 argument.r3. Defense, pro defends pro's r1 argument against con's r2 rebuttal and con defends con's r1 argument against pro's r2 rebuttal.Con's argumentI hear the phrase fur is murder a lot. It makes no sense to me. Animals are dumb. They don't feel pain nor are they sentient any more than a rock or piece of clay is. I don't understand this nonsense. A rock reacts to stimulus just like animals do. Killing an animal is the same as breaking a rock into smaller pieces.My best guess is people are confusing reacting to stimulus with sentience. For example, if I turn on a light bulb a light goes on. A person could say the light bulb is alive! When the light bulb is turned off, sometimes people use the phrase "kill the lights." Is this murder? Turning off a light bulb? Nay, I say. More examples are fire. A fire is often called alive. Yet, are fire fighters killers? When they snuff the flames with their flame retardant is this murder? Nay! How about alkali metals? They have stimulus and response. Ever see what happens when an alkali metal reacts? Its really neat see the below youtube video. [1] How about metal? Does not the metal react to the stimulus of heat, increasing in temperature and color? Think of a blacksmith. With each stroke of the hammer the metal reacts to stimulus.
It was right for Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked from Top Gear

Clarkson is a racist, homophobic, and sexist man in a world that is racist, homophobic, and sexist. To silence him is not going to change that. The only way to change such attitudes is through dialogue and reason, not through oppression that only serves to create the false impression that it is no longer there because you no longer hear it. Sacking him was the wrong thing to do.
It was right for Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked from Top Gear

All of the times Clarkson has done something bad, the BBC have said, "Next time you do something like that, your going to get fired." Do you know what happened the next time? The BBC said that next time he was going to get fired. Even after the whole "slope" scandal, which I still believe was pure racism, he got allowed to continue on with Top Gear. I accept the Falklands War scandal might not have been his fault but the BBC should have have dropped Jeremy from the program. There is an entire Wikipedia page on Top Gear controversies, all of which involve Clarkson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... He is a racist, homophobic, sexist man. Of course it was right for him to be sacked from Top Gear
It was right for Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked from Top Gear

1: He punched a producer:Clarkson was on the receiving end of violence throughout his teenage years [1] when corporeal punishment was the norm in British schools [2]. "Exposure to violence is among the most detrimental experiences children can have, impacting how they think, feel and act" [3] "Children who experience violence are more likely to become ensnared in a cycle of violence that leads to future violent behaviour" [3] I can not condone what he did, but I can understand how he came to commit violence considering what he experienced during his formative years and it is easy to blame society but then again, any society that condones violence against children is a society that is asking to be blamed when those children end up violent. The law didn't think it to be serious though because the matter was dropped [4]. Clarkson should have been send to an advanced course in Anger Management instead.2: He is a controversial presenter:I came across a page with some of his quotes and as wrong as they were, I had to chuckle. He is one of those people that I love to hate, he's the stereotype ogre that would fart at the queen's banquet and get the laughs, he could walk around Trafalgar square saying "Sieg Heil" and people would look at him endearingly and go "ooh" and "ah" because he is Clarkson. He gets away with it because he is a stereotype of ourselves, he is a mirror to the darker side of society and to take him off the air is to lock away the prejudices that exist within society. Prejudice is a cancer and should not be ignored. A tumor must be treated and Clarkson gives us the opening to treat prejudice. By sprouting prejudice, he is giving us the tool to confront prejudice by showing how ridiculous prejudice is. Condemn Clarkson if you must but society needs him and people like him to say the wrong thing or society will never outgrow the prejudices that it has.[1] https://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...[4] https://goo.gl...
It was right for Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked from Top Gear

Just remember how many times in the past Clarkson was almost fired from Top Gera. He is basically the Donald Trump of British entertainment. He says the most outrageous stuff but is allowed to stay on Top Gear because people like him. Personally, I think he should have been sacked a long time ago. Remember the fact that he was sacked for punching the producer. Physical abuse! Of course he was going to get sacked. If he had said the same things in an office or simitate, he would have been sacked a long time ago and would possibly be in prison.
It was right for Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked from Top Gear

Before I put down my stance on this subject, let me first say that even though I do not agree with Clarkson having been fired, that I do feel that he crossed the line more than once. The problem I however is that Clarkson was never convicted of crossing the line and that "crossing the line" is a rather subjective term that frankly can be used to fire anyone from any job simply because someone demands it. In my opinion, there should be no punishment without crime and if a crime was committed, then a verdict should have been reached in a court of law.
It was right for Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked from Top Gear

It is right that Jeremy Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear. He is a very controversial presenter/entertainer and he has said quite a lot of things in the past that he really should have been sacked for. Whenever somebody like Frankie Boyle makes a slightly offensive joke, he is sacked fro Mock the Week. Why not the same with Clarkson? Because people like him. So? Some people like murdering other people. Just because people like him doesn't mean he should still be allowed. I wish anybody who wishes to come up against me luck in what I believe to be such an obvious matter.
The term "Strong Atheism" is inaccurate for what it currently represents.

The term "Strong Atheism" is generally used to represent the belief that there is no God. BoP is on me to show that this term is a misrepresentation of that belief. Cons goal is to refute my arguments. Definitions (I'm willing to discuss these definitions prior to the debate, but as it stands, acceptance of this debate is acceptance of these definitions): Theism: Belief in the existence of a God or God(s). Atheism: Without theism.
The term "Strong Atheism" is inaccurate for what it currently represents.

First off, thank you SONOFGOD2013 for accepting the challenge. As Jingram was kind enough to answer your first question, I'll move right to your second one. No, I do not worship Satan, but thank you for asking instead of assuming. I don't worship anything (although it has been said that I play video games often enough to consider it worship...). While I wouldn't say it's not a possibility, I don't believe either God or Satan exist. Now then, onto my argumentation. It seems to me that believing God does not exist is not a belief without theism, but rather a different degree or level of theistic belief. To be theistic does not necessarily mean one believes God exists, but that they hold A belief in the existence of God. In other words, ANY belief pertaining to the existence of God would qualify as theistic belief, included the belief that God does not exist. A belief regarding the theistic proposition, only it's at the opposite end of the spectrum from which is commonly assumed, an opposing belief in the existence God(s). It is theistic belief, the only real distinction being that it's centers on denial rather than affirmation. To put it more succinctly, belief that God does not exist is the denial of theistic proposition, and therefore directly related to theism. As such, it is not a belief without theism, and should not be referred to as "strong atheism".
AIDS sufferers and those at high risk of contracting the disease should be interned

Even if every nation on the world would be ready to spend such enormous sums of money for establishment of these internment camps, where is it going to lead our society? * What are going to be those institutions and how will they be operated - are they going to be police like or elected? * How will they be funded - by governments or by U. N. (for example)? * How will they be regulated? My opponent said that internment is not a punishment but preventive action. Yes, there were times were internment was necessary - wars or big catastrophes, but these were temporary solutions. There is no difference between imprisonment and term-less internment. And for every internment there must be justification. Preventive measures can`t last forever (or as long as we find cure for AIDS) - it is punishment for being infected. [1] And talking about society and positive aspects - what is the purpose of justice system? It`s purpose is to bring justice to criminals measuring their crime and sentencing to adequate prison term. If we are starting to chop off hands and bringing every burglar to electric chair there won`t be proper crime to penalty proportion. How can we be sure that there won`t happen crimes associated with possibility of internment - like intentionally infecting someone with infected blood (using needle as a weapon) and then reporting this person as intern able? Do my opponent really think that interning a HIV positive person without even investigating the way he was infected with virus is a way to go? Making of such camps is going to crush confidence of society against government - seeing that government is not fighting with causes bot only with results (because it is easier). If we are talking about internment camps for mentally ill or people with negative attitude towards society as whole then we can assume that these persons are not going to be supportive and mentally healthy members of society anyway. HIV infected persons are just as (non)destructive as a person living with cancer. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you for debate and pity there won`t be another round.
AIDS sufferers and those at high risk of contracting the disease should be interned

As we all know, the HIV virus leads to AIDS, which in turn leads to a slow and painful death, and there is no cure. This terrible disease was originally called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID) or, informally, the gay plague, because the condition only affected gay men. [1] However, as time went by and the severity of the disease became apparent, politicians became concerned that the gay community would become stigmatised by their association with the virus and be punished for spreading it, so the alternative name AIDS, standing for Acquired Immune Deficiency, was adopted. Still, because the primary means of transmitting AIDS remains unprotected sex between men the condition continues to disproportionately affect homosexuals. [2] Of course, it was only ever a matter of time before AIDS spread to heterosexual population, and this happened primarily through shared needles used to inject drugs, so today heroin addicts are also at high risk of contracting the disease. [3] Now, while it is true that most people will have no sympathy with drug addicts and promiscuous gay men who contract AIDS, we must remember that the disease is not limited to these groups any longer. For example, an infected mother can transmit HIV to their unborn child in the womb or to a suckling infant through her breast milk. These children are totally innocent but they are condemned to an early grave before they can even walk. Clearly, as a society, we cannot allow this disease to proliferate any further and drastic action needs to be taken. Since there is no cure for AIDS, and there is no prospect of discovering one any time soon, we have no choice but to separate sufferers and the high-risk groups from the rest of society. I therefore propose that, in addition to existing AIDS sufferers, gay men and heroin addicts should be locked up in high security internment camps where they will be supplied with food, water and coffins via hermetically-sealed hatches in the facilities' walls. In addition to humanitarian supplies, the inmates will also be provided with spades so they can create landfill sites to dispose of their refuse. They may also use the spades to dig graves for their dead, but, of course, there is also the possibility that some inmates may use them to dig tunnels in a bid for freedom. That's why it will be necessary to mine the area surrounding the camps and have armed guards patrol the perimeters. I accept that this proposal will not eradicate AIDS completely – the disease could still be transmitted by ex-gays and closet bisexuals who have slipped through the net - but it will go a long way to containing the disease until a cure can be found. Thank you. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.sfaf.org... [3] http://www.avert.org...
Star Trek technology is achievable

The technology on Star Trek is reasonably achievable. While the technology is inherently fictional, the function of the technology could be duplicated in the real world, including it's practical application.I have provided a list of Star Trek technology. My opponent must choose one of these listed fictional technologies and argue why it's impossible to create. My burden of proof will be to explain why it is possible to create such a technology.List:1.> Transporter Technology2.> Phase modulated Beam weapons (Phasers)3.> Warp Drive Technology4.> Force Field Technology 5.> Holographic Recreational Deck (Holodeck)6.> Tricorder (Medical or General purpose Tricorder)7.> Cloaking Technology8.> Replication Technology (Replicator)9.> Borg Nanites (Nanotechnology) Rules: Round 1 - Opponent accepts debate and announces which list item we will focus our discussion on.Round 2-4 - Standard debate rounds.Round 5 - Closing Arguments.
Should the age restriction for sex move to 21? (any country)

/PERSONAL NOTE/ I think this is a good choice for a debate topic and I hope I will be able to provide you with more than just the arguments you are expecting to face, so that it'll be a challenge for you as well. As a non-native-English-writer I am going to do my very best to provide my arguments with the grammar and spelling you deserve but hope you will overlook an occasional mistake. I don't think that it is necessary to raise the legal age for sex, because it directly links to the question about the level of responsibility you think a person under 21 is capable of. I am going to argue that the age limit of 21 does not necessarily guarantees you to lower teen-pregnancy and that Teenagers and young adults between the age of 15 and 20 are capable of making responsible decisions about their body as well as the importance of allowing them to show this responsibility. Furthermore I want to explain how some views might be based on misguiding TV-content and that not that many young sexually active Teenagers are sex addicts. In addition I think it's problematic to rate people, who wait till marriage to have sex, as "good people". I am warning us both (!) to not drift into this topic too much. This is hopefully not going to be about whether or not marriage is necessary to have sex nor the worth of a marriage in terms of "forever". We might not be able to totally avoid this topic but I hope it's not going to shadow over the main points. I am looking forward to this.
Should the age restriction for sex move to 21? (any country)

First off, there are people out there who are stupid enough to believe "You can't live without sex" and so they start off as soon as they are of eligible age, with no thought on contraceptives and STD's. So what's the disgusting part of teen sex? Teen pregnancies! These teens were not thinking of anything else during their first time, and now their worst fear is this child. Basically, the teens who are addicted to sex can be judged by their immediate actions and their influences on this child will make the child worse than the teens! There are good people out there who don't have sex until after their marriage proccess and are aware that their partner is there forever. The teens, on the other hand, are "goofing around", then there will be an immense break-up and the teen mother will have to raise the child on her own. Is this really what society is becoming in terms of sex? I would like to see a Con response to see what you think and/or how the age restriction for sex (in any country) should remain the way it currently is.
Are women oppressed relative to men in the United States? Pro = Yes Con = No

I was under the impression that round one was acceptance and opening statement. Men are also oppressed in many ways. If men are oppressed in so many ways why is it that you only name one? One that I will show you men are not oppressed but in fact women are. The only men I can even think of that are oppressed simply for there gender are men like me that want to be homemakers and stay at home parents. This is by far a minority of men. For example it is much easier for a women to get a job in STEM-related fields. My opponent gives no evidence of this; however I will show how women are oppressed when in comes to STEM-related fields. Long before a woman has a job in these fields a woman has had to fight just to get the needed skills. If you walk around in you local toy store it clear. Almost every single toy for girls is about being a home maker and raising kids. For boys you have many different toys geared for learning math, science and engineering. While there is some toy makers staring to lead the way in changing this still most of these toys are still on selves that read for boys. That does that tell a girl that these subjects are not for her. Even after a woman as passed though all the red type to get the training and land the job she is still oppressed. Women are passed over for promotions for men, even in STEM-related fields aimed at women. While women in these fields make but about equal, or more, of lower level management as you move up in they company there is less and less of a percentage of women. To the every top were only 4.8% of CEOs are women. On top of that she will be paid less. The amount less ranges from 9% less in D.C., to 34% less in Louisiana. http://www.aauw.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.newstatesman.com... Therefore women are not oppressed relative to men I again ask how men are oppressed? At one time men had 100% of the power and women were 100% oppressed. We have made many leaps in equiality since then. I would say men still have 60% of the power leaving women only 10% oppressed. This does not make men oppressed. This is the same “Hypothesis Contrary To Fact” argument that says white people, straight people, and Christians are oppressed. As others gain the rights and freedoms they should have had in the first place the groups that once oppressed will get less and less until there is a balance reached. This is not oppression.