BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whether animals deserve moral treatment.

Con Position: Animals neither have nor deserve rights, or any sort of moral treatment. Specifically, I will be arguing that morality only makes sense with respect to human agents and agents that can/may mimick human intelligence. Animals should only be treated as things or property. My opponent argues that animals should be treated with moral respect. We each will have to posit and defend an ethical philosophy as a framework to consider this issue, along with the issue, itself. After accepting this, the opponent will posit the definitions relevant to the debate, I will consider those and posit my own, he'll have an opportunity to do such again, and then we will begin concrete debate with Round 3. =Structure= R1 and R2: Acceptance/definitions R3: Arguments R4: Rebuttals R5: Rebuttals
Whether animals deserve moral treatment.

Okay, well I am going to go ahead and start my argument. "Specifically, I will be arguing that morality only makes sense with respect to human agents and agents that can/may mimic human intelligence. Animals should only be treated as things or property."Well lets look at animals that do mimic human intelligence. Dolphins for example are one of the only animals that have sex for pleasure. They are one of the smartest animals we know of. They mimic humans in how they have companions, and also how they mourn for these companions. Dolphins can actually go through depressions. And of course, everyone has heard the stories of dolphins saving other dolphins, and even humans.So, since these animals mimic human intelligence, even though just a more primitive form of human intelligence, shouldn't they be entitled to basic civil rights such as humans? And with any animal no matter what, the depriving of something life is morally wrong. The idea of killing in itself, has been treated as morally wrong since the beginning of time. Even the Native Americans mourned for the buffalo they killed.So killing in itself, is morally wrong. Even though we do raise and kill animals for food, this is still morally wrong. Even though we need to have this food, based on morals, animals do need to be treated with some respect, since they are alive. Also, it is morally wrong to deprive something that has free will, of its freedom. Even though we do this, it is still morally wrong.
Whether animals deserve moral treatment.

Animals are nonhuman members of the kingdom Animalia — from sponges to great apes.ï¿½ Moral treatment ï¿½is the treating of some being as a person included in moral claims such as "It's wrong to murder people".ï¿½ Human Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge and skills as humans do in their thought. And to say that animals deserve moral treatment is another way of saying that "It's morally wrong/right to treat animals in certain ways".
animal abuse bad or good

I think it is very bad Animal abuse kills animals"!!!!!!!!!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!!!!!!!!,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"llllk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

I am sorry that I didn't explain my previous point. What I mean was that if a person abuses their right to drink alcohol then that only results in personal problems. But if a person abuses their right to join the military then that not only incurs personal problems but also national security as well. The army functions as a team, which can only perform as well as the weakest member, whereas the individual is the basic unit of society and so there will be no serious consequences to the general population if a person does abuse alcohol. Of course I admit that every country is different, but you have to notice the correlation between drinking related deaths and countries with a high legal drinking age. I can assure you from a personal experience that no harm will come from lowering the drinking age, it definitely isn't a problem here in the UK, and the statistics show that. I definitely think the drinking age should be lowered in the USA. Why should a person be allowed to vote, but not allowed to drink alcohol? In the eyes of the law and the government they have reached maturity, and so therefore should be trusted individuals of society.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

con mentions the differences in the risks of military invovlement and drinking, but doesn't explain them or how they are significant. i'm not saying he's wrong, just that he's not really explained anything. if the USA has a cultural problem with alcohol, we have to take it as it is. italy might be different, but you admit they are different to begin with. perhaps we could work on our culture, but until that's changed, we have to take things as they are. that means keeping drinking age from being lowered. con even admits that youths abuse alochol. that means we have to be weary of lowering the drinking age. im not sure how better regulation would change anything, as it hasn't been demonstrated. a regulation doesn't stop someone from drinking and driving. i assume this means the stuff he said about accountability, but this just goes back to what i said in my last post about accountability.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

I think pro needs to realize that there is a fine line between drinking alcohol and being on the front lines in battle, the risks associated with either are vastly different, especially when the latter concerns the security of the country. The problem with modern society is that alcohol is generally frowned upon which means that when youths do eventually get to drink alcohol they unfortunately abuse it. An example of this can be found in Italy where alcohol isn't frowned on, and in fact is encouraged by society, and therefore children grow up with it from an early age. This has a dramatic effect on the countries well-being as alcohol isn't abused by youths an Italy has one of the lowest drink related deaths in the world. (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com...) My point is that alcohol shouldn't be regulated by what pro deems as maturity, but should be better regulated by governments and encouraged from an early age, hence why the drinking age should be lowered.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

con admits the military age should be raised. he should then admit that it's because of an issue of maturity. given this issue exists at that age for military purposes, it surely exists for drinking purposes. he also says people should just be held accountable for their actions. no one disputes this, but being held accountable doesn't necessarily prevent the stupidity in drunk or sloppy driving, which is more prevalent in more youthful drinkers. con says if they are considred adults, why not liet them drink? sure, as with the military point, maybe they should coincide. but that doesn't mean drinking age should be lowered, it means 'adulthood' should be considered higher, for many purposes.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

I have the advantage here of having lived in a country that has lowered the age of drinking to 18 for 17 years, that country being the UK. I definitely agree with your statement about the age of enlisting being too low, in fact it's even lower in the UK at only 16, but at the age of 18 a person has already become an adult who in the eyes of the law is accountable for their own actions. They are also an active member of society and can also partake in other responsible activities such as voting and getting married, why shouldn't they be responsible for their alcohol consumption? In my opinion if somebody wants to abuse alcohol their whole life then that is their decision and they should be held responsible for their own mistakes. Here in the UK we tend to follow this theory and the number of drink driving fatalities is much less than that of America due to the government's efficient regulating. We impose a high tax rate for beer and some establishments don't serve customers under the age of 21, although consumption still remains legal for those over the age of 18. Which brings me on to my argument of if a person is considered an adult in society, why aren't they allowed to drink alcohol?
Animal rights

My opponent will argue that Animals do not have rights. Here are my examples why they do have rights. First- Animals have "similar" rights as we do they may not be able to vote or do certain things that we humans can but here is some rights, they have the right to breath, they have right to live, the right to not be killed, and the right to not be held in captivity. Second- They have the right to do as they please, meaning they can think and do whatever action they choose.
The Roman Empire Was Superior to the Roman Republic

Sorry CP. I am going to have to respectfully forfeit. I am swamped with Calculus homework, Chinese homework, and the like. I will have arguments for the next round, I am just out of time (i.e. I only have 5 minutes left). I would like to ask voters to give the conduct point to my opponent, but please do not base the convincing arguments points on this. Again, I very much apologize to CP and I hope that you will understand.
The Roman Empire Was Superior to the Roman Republic

Here is our Roman Empire debate CP. Enjoy. Full Resolution: The Roman Empire Was Superior to the Roman Republic. Definitions: The Roman Empire: "The post-Republican period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings in Europe and around the Mediterranean. Years: 27 B.C.-476 A.D.."[1] The Roman Republic: "The period of the ancient Roman civilization where the government operated as a republic. Years: 509 B.C.-27 B.C.."[2] Superior: "Of higher grade or quality."[3] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is an automatic loss and all seven points for voting should be given to the other person. 3. No semantics. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Arguments and rebuttals (latter for con) Rounds 3-4: Defense of own arguments and attack of opponent's arguments (no new arguments). Round 5: Conclusion (just summarize your arguments and the flaws in your opponent's arguments, no new arguments, max 2500 characters). By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the full resolution, definitions, rules, and debate structure. Please make this debate clean and mannerly. May the best debater win. Sources: [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
All Drugs Should Be Legalized

Firstly my opponent should know(reading the rules of DDO) unless explictly stated in the rules of the debate, I do not have to refute my opponents link. He needs to post a actual case or lose the debate not simply presuppose what he is trying to prove. My opponent has not fufilled his burden of proof. I needn't refute CNN because they are nonbais and cannot firmly take a position so :P If this is allowed then: http://www.activistpost.com...
Natsu dragneel vs Gajeel redfox

Nastu broke though those scales already. Look at any fact in the manga and nothing shows Gajeel kept up with Natsu. Looking at the facts, Gajeel got his power up far after Nastu as Gajeel isn't even Nastu's main rival it is understandable why he got left by the way-side. Also you have nothing for Gajeel proving he can take what Nastu just did. Nastu has more moves, and better feats. And yes he had some help in the heavy fights but Gajeel never fought anyone close to that caliber.
Natsu dragneel vs Gajeel redfox

Very interesting but as you know his feats were usually accomplished WITH HELP. In fact lightning has little affect on Gajeel. When say he has more moves it's because he barely does any damage without them, while Gajeel has buffs for his basic attack and does way more damage than Natsu's basic attack ( If you play VainGlory Natsu is a Koshka and Gajeel is a Ringo). The only reason Gajeel cannot accomplish these feats is because like you said Gajeel has less moves than Natsu. In reality they are of equal power. Natsu DID NOT beat Gajeel in the beginning of the Manga but simply got the last hit, they were both unable to fight and thus that was a draw. Plus if Gajeel was caught in a sticky situation he can cover himself with metal scales.
Natsu dragneel vs Gajeel redfox

Nastu already proved he was ahead of Gajeel when he beat him at the beginning of the manga. Not much has changed and they both grew at a similar pace with Nastu a tad ahead, then Nastu obtained lighting fire mode. That put him far ahead of the liked of both Gray and Gajeel. Of course Gajeel later got iron shadow mode, however while that boosts him up, Nastu has still got the edge. He has more feats, and more moves. Plus most anime/manga fans know the main character always has the fastest growth rate. Plus after the time skip Nastu proved he has powers far above anything Gajeel has shown http://www.mangabee.co... read on to 27.
Natsu dragneel vs Gajeel redfox

Gajeel Redfox would beat Natsu Dragneel in a fight 2015 BECAUSE not only has Gajeel developed iron of emotion but now has shadow dragon slayer abilitys which he can use to trick Natsu and get all of his attacks in without even trying. Now you may say that Natsu is so stuburn that he will outlast Gajeel or any other opponent. His motivation is know he can beat anyone in his path. Now Gajeel is also very stuburn ESPICALLY when it comes to the salamander because his motivation is if the salamander can do it than I can do it too. In general Gajeel is stronger, tougher, faster, and overall smarter
Absolute Truth

I'd hardly call it fair for you to say that the only absolute truth is their are no absolute truths. As in the original argument you didn't ask me to do that. Your just making up a debate that is impossible for con to win, so you can get votes. I like good philosophical debates where no one automatically loses and it is impossible for one side to win. This debate is pointless, I hope you enjoy your set-up win, one you really did not deserve.
Absolute Truth

Are then any absolute truths. No. 1. We aren't certain of anything (Common beliefs, laws, etc. are proved wrong every day) 2. People have different takes on everything (what you think is the color blue, I think is the color navy) 3. Any example can have a different truth, so there is no absolute truth I'm now asking my opponent to bring forth an example that can not be thought of with more then one truth.
should we maralize legalwana

Yes, drugs should be legalized I believe that drugs are positive here is why Cannabis has been used for over 10,000 years and not one single death has EVER been recorded. " It is not addictive and is actually far less addictive than caffeine " If legalized, far less more minors would be using Cannabis or weed would be sold in stores, valid ID must be given and the user must be at least 21 years of age. After customers start buying from these weed dispensaries, drug dealers would vanish and the ones that stick around would be most likely dealing hard drugs " Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's just the dealers persistently persuading their customers to try harder drugs because they know marijuana is not addictive. If they were to get them to at least try the harder drugs, they would get addicted and come back for more, giving the dealer never ending business " Marijuana cures and prevents Alzheimer and Glaucoma, helps relieve stress, anxiety, depression, slows down tumor growth, and helps relieve pain for chemo/radiation therapy patients as well. " If legalized, marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. Cannabis farms can be set up as well, and growing and harvesting marijuana can become a profession thus lowering the unemployment rate. " Does not lead to or cause lung cancer
I will NOT contradict myself

Question1, Are you mentally insane? Question 2, Are you sure you are not mentally insane? Question 3, How do you know this? Question 4, Do insane people know if they are insane or insane or not? Question 5, Are you sure we are having this debate right now? Question 6, How do you know you are not imagining this debate and in reality, are locked up in an instutution, lost in your imaginary world? Question 7, What what does zero mean? Question 8, Does zero represent nothing? Question 9, Is it possible to have less than zero of something? Question 10, What is sound?
I will NOT contradict myself

Hello DDO, daley stated in a previous debate that he has 10 questions that will cause me to contradict myself. Let's seeStructureRound 1: Pro will give terms and agreements, con will present first questionsRound 2: Pro will respond to con's 1st set of questions and con will present 2nd set of questions.Round 3: Pro will respond to the 2nd set of questions and con will give the 3rd set of questionsRound 4: Pro will respond to the 3rd set of questiosn and con will give the 4th set of questionsRound 5: Pro will respond to the 4th set of questions and con will present any contradictions.RulesIf at any time, pro contradicts himself, he will automatically lose.Con may NOT ask any questions regarding sex or sexualityCon may NOT ask any type of questiosn that are a paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org...Con may NOT ask the same question twice.If con breaks the rules, pro automatically wins.Good luck!
I will NOT contradict myself

I apologize for forfeiting my last round. I had no access to the internet. My internet is down and I am using my cousin's computer. On to the questions. I understandIn Science, what does 1degrees celsius mean? 1 degree above freezingIn Science, what does 0 degrees mean? FreezingDefine what it means to be insane? Not normal, acting in a weird manner. Is truth decoded by majority vote? NoWhat is the difference between believing, and knowing? Believing is accepting something as true wheither you see it or not (i. e. faith), knowing is accepting truth because we can see it and expierence it for ourselves. Do you believe you are not mad, or do you know you are not mad? I know I'm not madIn the last round we will see how opponent has contradicted himself Hmm. .. you think you found a contradiction, eh? I'd love to see it! Anyway, I have won this debate. Vote pro! If con breaks the rules, pro automatically wins.
I will NOT contradict myself

I apologize for forfeiting my last round. I had no access to the internet. My internet is down and I am using my cousin's computer. On to the questions. In Science, what does 1degrees celsius mean? In Science, what does 0 degrees mean? Define what it means to be insane Is truth decoded by majority vote? What is the difference between believing, and knowing? Do you believe you are not mad, or do you know you are not mad? In the last round we will see how opponent has contradicted himself
I will NOT contradict myself

Thanks for your reply and thought-provoking questions.Question1, Are you mentally insane?I am NOT mentally insane.Question 2, Are you sure you are not mentally insane?Positive. I know for a fact I am not mentally insane.Question 3, How do you know this?MRI, tests, medical examinations etc.Question 4, Do insane people know if they are insane or insane or not?I do not know. I am not a mentally insane person so how would I know that?Question 5, Are you sure we are having this debate right now?No, I am not sure.Question 6, How do you know you are not imagining this debate and in reality, are locked up in an instutution, lost in your imaginary world?Since I am unsure we are having this debate, I am unsure that this is not being imagined.Question 7, What what does zero mean?In what context? http://dictionary.reference.com... tons of possible contexts for zeroQuestion 8, Does zero represent nothing?I'm unsure what context you are using so I cannot answer this question.Question 9, Is it possible to have less than zero of something?No. Question 10, What is sound?In what context? There are lots of possible answers for what sound is. http://dictionary.reference.com...Back to you.
Zombies are more dangerous than Vampires.

REPLIES"If vampires were to be travelling constantly to avoid the sun, I imagine the humans would be much safer."Actually, you're missing the point. You brought up the argument that vampires can't go in the sunlight. I showed that this doesn't matter, they can still attack 24/7. In-fact, I only gave half the story, there's more. Lets not forget that vampires can also attack anywhere with heavy cloud cover, during the day. Even more importantly, there's an entire region they may attack non-stop for months in the northern hemisphere, during certain times of the year. The point is that sunlight doesn't truly stand in any vampire's way. "Let me reiterate and expand..."Like I pointed out, humans are a perfect example of why your arguments is wrong. Humans are the most self-destructive species on Earth due to our intelligence but it doesn't change the fact that we are still the dominant one. "I strongly disagree. Zombies eat animals, just as they do humans."Haha, this is laughable. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that humans have basically zero hunting assets besides their intelligence? Imagining a zombie trying to run after a wild animal so it can bite it is really quite hilarious. Our bodies are slow and our face is not made for biting into something while it's still moving."Again, I disagree"Sorry but it doesn't really matter of you agree with it or not, those are the facts, lol. Dead bodies behave this way in the temperature. You can't say it's not true just because movie-makers didn't think things through good enough."They are capable or breaking down the door of your house and perhaps breaching a fence."Zombies can break windows. A door? No. Do you know how hard it is to break down a normal door? It needs to be kicked, and in a specific location. Pounding on it will just make lots of noise. Have you ever seen a zombie kick? They don't even have the mental abilities to do that. That can't even figure out that fences can be climbed over.Vampires, on the other hand? They can lure you outside. They can even destroy your house with weapons if they wanted to. In the early stages of a vampire apocalypse they may even launch mass air-strikes with bombs and send in armed troops after they're done, for the purpose of weakening human resistance rather than drinking blood."In both situations, the population is going to be largely wiped out fairly quickly."Actually, I think both apocalypses would likely fail. Humans are a worse monster than either. One of zombies would almost certainly fail.
The Price ranges on FIFA 15

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu bra fifa 15 is so much better as i have toty messi and bale is sH.it so go and play your sH.itty pes peace out
The Price ranges on FIFA 15

They were already making a butt tone of money, why ruin ultimate team? Big name Youtubers such a W2S and KSI, have switched over to PES. Therefore they are promoting PES and not FIFA now. So in actual fact, price ranges are losing ea money you f.u.c.k.e.r! BTW why would we buy FIFA points because we can't buy coins? Kill yourself.
Agnostic Atheism is more rational than an Agnostic Monotheist

I should note that the burden of proof rests on the Proposition because they are both affirming the position, and they are Proposition. It is their burden to show []A where A stands for the resolution. They must set an objective quantifier, in this debate from "rational" reason is assumed to be that quantifier. This means that the soundness of reason is assumed in this debate.