BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ethical consistency leads to veganism

Step 1: Why do you eat animals? Step 2: You have given a reason. Let's label this, 'Reason A'. Example: 'Reason A' could be, "because I like the taste" Step 3: You have used 'Reason A' to justify your action. In this case, your action is 'eating animals'. You believe that eating animals is morally acceptable, based on 'Reason A'. Step 4: If someone else used 'Reason A' to justify one of their actions, would you also find it morally acceptable? Example: "Mark eats new born babies, because he likes the taste" Step 5: If you find Mark's actions morally acceptable, you are consistent in your ethics. If you do not find Mark's actions morally acceptable, you are inconsistent in your ethics. If you are being inconsistent, you would have to explain why you are okay using 'Reason A' to justify your actions, but not okay with Mark using 'Reason A' to justify his actions. Reason for the 5 step consistency test?: Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.
Ethical consistency leads to veganism

Step 1-3: You gave 4 reasons, which you labeled A, B, C and D.A: Tastes goodB: ConvenienceC: Cultural ImportanceD: Animals are not worthy of significant enough moral considerationStep 4: Let's go one by one to see if each reason (A,B,C and D) work.A: You eat animals because they taste good.A: Mark eats babies because they taste good.You don't accept mark eating babies based on the taste. Therefore we can discard reason A as a valid justification.B: You eat animals because it is convenient.B: Mark eats babies because it is convenient.You don't accept mark eating babies based convenience. Therefore we can discard reason B as a valid justification.C: You eat animals because they have no cultural importance.C: Mark eats babies because they have no cultural importance.You don't accept mark eating babies based on cultural importance. Therefore we can discard reason C as a valid justification.D: You eat animals because animals are not worthy of significant enough moral considerationD: Mark eats babies because babies are not worthy of significant enough moral considerationYou don't accept mark eating babies based on not being worthy of significant enough moral consideration. Therefore we can discard reason D as a valid justification.I have now ruled out each justification one by one, so you are now left with 0 valid reasons to justify eating animals.You may have given a reason E, which was "there is a moral difference between a baby and a livestock animal." - You would have to further expand on this.Step 5: You said there are significant different between the situations, but did not explain what those differences are. You would have to further expand on this."Pat eats carrots because he likes the taste". Pat is not using valid reasoning here, because he would be in the same position you are in, within your Reason A. The first thing we need to establish is whether or not the action is a concern with morals and ethics. For example, "Pat listens to jazz music because he likes the sound of real instruments." - This is not something that relates to morals and ethics. This is more of a preference that has no harm associated with it. When we evaluate our actions, the consistency needs to come in when we are talking about actions that cause harm.Eating carrots does have some harm associated with it, because vegetable farming harms animals as an indirect result. Such as, killing field mice. But to give you an example of a consistent position, let me give you my reason for why I would eat carrots.I eat carrots because it causes the least amount of harm [by a large margin], compared to the meat and dairy alternative. The 'Reason A' I am using to justify my action (of eating a carrot) is to cause the least amount of harm. And no matter what context or situation you use 'Reason A' in, I would see it as morally acceptable, since it would be causing the least amount of harm. This is why using a reason like, "it tastes good", is not a justification you could consistency deploy.Link to study regarding animal farming vs vegetable farming: http://www.animalvisuals.org...
Ethical consistency leads to veganism

Alright running through your test: Step 1: Why do I eat meat? A convergence of multiple reasons, first yes meat tastes good, second convenience third cultural importance, fourth I do not believe that the animals I consume are worthy of significant enough moral consideration to make eating them immoral. Step 2: Alright let's label these reasons a, b, c and d. Step 3: Yes based on these four reasons I believe it's acceptable to eat meat. Step 4: Alright so if Mark believes that it's acceptable to eat babies based on the taste, convenience, cultural importance and lack of moral worth do I have to accept him eating babies? No of course not, even apart from the convenience or cultural importance aspects of course there is a moral difference between a baby and a livestock animal. Step 5: No I'm not in a morally contradictory position because there are significant differences between the situations. For instance let's say a vegan (we'll call him Pat) eats carrots because he likes the taste. This does not mean that Pat has to accept Mark the baby eater eating babies because he likes the taste because there are significant differences between the situations. Also I should add on that under the ethical code of Mark the baby eater of course ethical consistency would not lead to veganism as veganism being the result of ethical consistency is of course only the case when being consistent with ones own ethics would result in veganism.
Facebook leads to more harm then good.

Well now, well now. I suppose we'll see if this becomes a debate. Since my opponent FF'd the first round, I won't go full in depth here. But to lay out the shell of my argument, we'll start with a few propositions: Facebook is voluntary Facebook has harms and benefits These harms and benefits are subjective Combining these, we get a social tool that people can personally weigh to their benefit or detriment. Certainly, knowledge comes with time--we'll have a better conception of Facebook's harms and benefits five years from now, or at the very least, we'll have a better conception of Facebook's current benefits and harms five years from now. Given this, and because Facebook is voluntary, we see a natural check to the complete imbalance of the scales--Facebook could never get away with, for example, blackmailing users to their facially recognized indiscretions. Because Facebook is voluntary, it can never be wholly harmful. While the remainder of the harm might be apparent to some, it isn't valued as highly by others, and the tool should never be weighed by its detractors. Ironically, I might point out that I've weighed the subjective harms and benefits and found Facebook lacking. And so I don't use it any longer.
Universal Healthcare

As with other new debaters, I offer a few remarks before presenting my argument. I will not pull semantics concerning your grammar errors. Some debaters will happily accept that nothing violates your, "Right to pursuit happiness" as a right to happiness is something you pursue not "pursuit". Sound silly? Not here. Please make sure your contentions are well written and precise; otherwise, you will lose the debate before you present your second round. I also suggest you present definitions as I can define universal healthcare however I see fit. I am going to grant lots of leeway here and formulate your argument in a manner I can rebut. Please note, we have a lot of active voters on this site that do not support the healthcare plan presented by President Obama, if they offer you advice I suggest you take it. But, in reality, the definition that must be used for this debate is not the healthcare plan floating around in Congress. My opponent has presented arguments suggesting that universal healthcare violates the 9th amendment of the US Constitution. I will present the affirmative position that universal healthcare does not violate the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. Universal healthcare is a broadly defined. This wiki provides a decent definition [1], but as I will explain, we must limit the definition as my opponent claims it violates the 9th Amendment. My opponent correctly quotes the 9th Amendment but applied it incorrectly. When examining any legislation we must read the entire piece, leaving nothing out. "The enumeration in the Constitution…" In this context we can conclude that enumeration means to list off one after another [2] and the Constitution refers to the US Constitution. Universal healthcare is not enumerated in the Constitution. The only manner in which the universal healthcare proposal could be subject to 9th Amendment scrutiny is if it becomes enumerated in the US Constitution. Any definition for universal healthcare must be one that includes placement within the Constitution; otherwise, the resolution is affirmed and Con's position cannot stand. For this debate, universal healthcare must mean a Constitutional amendment granting healthcare coverage or medical care to all US citizens. I will leave my statement here. I do not wish to produce the historic construction of the 9th Amendment and the case law concerning the matter unless my opponent agrees that no healthcare plan can violate the 9th Amendment unless it enumerated in the Constitution. If my opponent does not agree, then I urge a vote for Pro. Also, I ask that he explain how universal healthcare precludes his ability to get private insurance. Good luck. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Universal Healthcare

Universal Healthcare should not be implemented in the United States. For this debate, I will define a Rights as being synonymous with entitlement. The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Forcing citizens to be complicit with government's initiatives to provide Universal Healthcare is a direct violation of people's Right to the pursuit of happiness [2]. If the government will not allow me to seek private insurance, this is a direct violation of my Right to pursuit happiness - therefore it is unconstitutional. I have the Right to pursuit of happiness, not healthcare. I look forward to a healthy debate, and good luck! [1]http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]http://www.ushistory.org...
Universal Healthcare

I accept my opponents concession and look forward to a future debate on this issue. I am a southern democrat and I do support Barack Obama. If my opponent wants to reformulate this one and challenge me, I will take it. 9th Amendment jurisprudence is a tough one; he did have some rebuttal, but reformulation for a future debate is the best move. Best move: reformulation 2nd Best: Attempting to use the SCOTUS opinions concerning the right to privacy, but I was ready to rebut those. 3rd Best: Telling me that I am a poor adjudicator of the Constitution. 4th Best: Pulling a sadolite and calling any argument using terms containing more than 10 letter "liberal".
Yoga Pants

I have been told my yoga pants tee shirt is misogynistic. I just found some humor in the fact that this piece of "athletic" apparel is worn to pick kids up form school, go to the farmers market, Starbucks & so on. I find it whimsical and fun. It is a cheap jab, but the words itself are not offensive. Thoughts? Web site is Yogapantstee.com - I sell them but caught some backlash as of late.
In Round One .. We Choose the Topic!

I affirm the resolution that young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. My first contention is that there have been and currently are many curfew in place right now, as a precaution to reduce crime. Because of the rise in rates of juvenile crime from the 1980s through the mid-1990s, many of the nation's jurisdictions imposed youth curfews. A 2000 survey of 490 cities by the National League of Cities found that 69% had nighttime curfews and 14% had daytime curfews. For an example, in Washington DC, The Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995 (DC Code 2-1541 et. seq.) states that persons under the age of 17 cannot remain in or on a street, park or other outdoor public place, in a vehicle or on the premises of any establishment within the District of Columbia during curfew hours, unless they are involved in certain exempted activities. Another example, in San Jose, California, Minors who are 16 or 17 years old cannot be in a public place within the city without adult supervision between the hours of 11:30pm and 5:00am. Why are these set in place? They are set in place so that teens will stay out of trouble. In cities, like New York and Los Angeles, there is gang violence at night because there are less people on the streets. Not to mention, it is safer for both the juveniles and law enforcement. If law enforcement responds to any call during curfew hours, there is a high chance that there will be less people there, in effect, being safer. My second contention is that it educates juveniles, both directly and indirectly. It indirectly teaches the juveniles to stay inside and not go out because juveniles go to school have have schoolwork to do, rather than running out on the street, causing havoc in public. It directly educates juveniles because the juveniles learn that violent and non-violent crimes han hapopen at night, and also it will educate them that there are alternatives to "chilling with their friends'. Gang activity stops after curfew hours begin, and if you address inappropriate behavior, you will minimize the opportunity for it to escalate into violence. In other words, if you catch youths early it is more likely they can become valuable members of society. I would again like to thank the affirmative for starting this case issue, and I look forward to continuing in this debate. Sources (1) http://www.libraryindex.com...... (2) http://mpdc.dc.gov...... (3) http://www.sjpd.org...... (4) http://usmayors.org......
In Round One .. We Choose the Topic!

I don't know which one is best to debate. Your pick. Post your choice. 1) Resolved: Young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. 2) Resolved: Children should be ‘bused' to schools outside of their neighborhood to ensure diversity within schools. 3) Resolved: Sex offender registries should be more well-known and advertised in the United States.
you! use theLwerd picture and mix with grievious pict

If run-ons_maker's position is that I cropped, copied, and pasted parts of a Huey picture onto one of General Grievous, then he is correct, I can't deny that. However, if his position is that I am using theLwerds picture and then cropped, copied, and pasted it onto a Grievous one then he is wrong, as I've given sufficient evidence to show that is not property of theLwerd's, nor does it necessarily mean that it was inspired by her. I'll let the voters decide on that count. I've changed my picture back to the one that we both are referring to, and you can decide. Also, one a personal note to run-ons_maker, I never suspected your integrity for a second. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
you! use theLwerd picture and mix with grievious pict

you misunderstand again i didn't mean that theLwerd use huey pict first but i mean he is USING it NOW!!!!!!!! you understand USING? present continues!!! right??? (hey i didn't explode or angry)any way before chaging the picture can we debate finish first? can you chage it back until debate end for about 1 day or i would have no chance on getting vote! and the debate is only about you use that pict' or not doesn't mess with copyright thing and really i didn't angry
you! use theLwerd picture and mix with grievious pict

1)Ahh the folly of man: assumption. You have not looked at all of the facts, and assume that theLwerd is the first and only person on this site to have used Huey. Rather, she is the second on both counts. Huey, who is now jatl2111, was the first user to use Huey. He is the 14th debate this site has had since it started up, and can be viewed on page 286. Also, when I first signed up I was originally going to be user name 'Huey' and planned to use the same Huey picture until I found out it was already taken, thus, I stuck with my regular screen name. So really, any Huey inspiration may not come from her at all, it could even be said she is taking it from me, although I in truth do not think this. However, it is coincidental that we both are using the picture in some fashion. 2) Oxford's definition of mask is: noun 1 a covering for all or part of the face, worn as a disguise, for protection or hygiene, or for theatrical effect. 2 a respirator used to filter inhaled air or to supply gas for inhalation. 3 a likeness of a person's face moulded or sculpted in clay or wax. 4 a face pack We'll use definition number 1 for all intents and purposes. My original picture is concept Grievous, then I photo shopped Huey's eyes and hair ONTO it, thus, they covered my "all or part of the face". Therefore, we can logically conclude that the sections of Huey I carved out are my mask. So while we can say that theLwerd and my pictures have certain likenesses, we cannot say that it has definitely derived from her. It could have com from user name Huey, or simply from my love for McGruder's 'The Boondocks'.
you! use theLwerd picture and mix with grievious pict

First, I'll attempt to unscramble this garble. You let me know if I'm correct: "Why are you doing it? Because look, it's hair is the same as theLwerd's hair in the picture, and you just put a Grievous face as a mask, right?" If this is right, let me know, it could very well determine the entire course of this debate. Anyway, on to my points: 1) In all fairness, the picture of Huey of the Boondocks does not belong to theLwerd, rather, it is copyrighted by Aaron McGruder, the original artist. Here is the website for further proof: http://www.theboondockstv.com... So in reality, I am not stealing from theLwerd, but a much more famous person with lawyers. I'm actually running quite a personal risk to myself. 2) I did not put Grievous as a mask, rather, that would be the hair. If you had seen my previous profile picture (and if you can't tell by the name) Grievous is my 'trademark' image. So actually, Huey's hair and eyes are masking me. 3) As to why, I simply thought it would be fun. I plan to do it with other debaters profile pictures whom I respect on this site, in the hopes that maybe some of their 'essence', if you will, may rub off on me. One can use all the assistance they can get on an event such as the tournament that I and so many others are engaged in. So if these answer your queries, the only question that remains now is how we shall attempt to waste the time provided by the other two rounds, unless you actually plan to argue on this.
R3 of Airmax1227's Basic Tourney TUF VS Lannan13: Horror Story

I was getting ready to walk out to the police. Into the light and into safety, but then all of the sudden. I blacked out.***********************************************************************I awoke in this strange room. My arms and legs were tied and stretched apart. I couldn't see a thing."Now it is your turn my friend." He said, "But before I begin to kill you let me explain to you that this is for your own safety.""How the hell can this help me if I'm going to die.""Your soul will be preserved for Allah."The lights were still dark and I couldn't see him. Moments latter a deep searing pain shot through my body as he cut into my thigh."Sh*************************************TTTTTTTTTTTTTT" I grimaced to fight back the terrible pain. I then realized that my shirt was off. This was due to the coldness I could feel or maybe it was from the blood loss.He then took a doctor's scalpel and slashed a line across my right side right above my hip.I could feel his cold hands as he stuck them in me, reaching around for something. "Ah-ha!" He found what he was looking for and he ripped out my kidney, or was it my liver? I had given up. Any chance of survival was slim and he was going to just kill me. I reached in and grabbed other organs that he could get his hands on. I blacked out again.*********************************************************************I awoke. What the hell? I thought to myself. Shouldn't I be dead? "You know you shouldn't fall asleep when I'm trying to save you." Said the figure.He turned on a dim light and I could see the rest of my co-workers that were disembowel and torn to pieces. I saw that he had strung intestines up all over."Now is the finally part is saving you." He said.He grabbed a duel-bladed knife from the cart and stabbed me in the middle of my chest. He then pressed a button that tore open my rib cage separating it. He placed his hands on my heart. "Say hello to God for me, my child." He then ripped my heart out. I coughed up blooded and the last thing I saw was him laughing as he tossed my heart against the wall. It splattered like a tomato hitting a knife.
R3 of Airmax1227's Basic Tourney TUF VS Lannan13: Horror Story

I had a sense of impending doom, knowing that the man was through the turnstile. I wondered in the back of my mind how it was physically possible for him to have access the building PA system if he wasn’t even in the building yet. Eventually I dis-regarded it, because it didn’t really matter. All that mattered was our survival. Suddenly the lights went off.. I heard Liz scream in the background. Then glass shattered. Yep, that was it, he was definitely in the building now. I turned on my flashlight, and left the suite to go look for Russell. As I left, I turned to Chris to let him know where I was going. I figured that control was probably the safest place for us all to be right now. But I couldn’t leave Russell. I left the mechanical mantrap, and walked down the dark south corridor. I scanned the area looking for him. He couldn’t have gone far, the supply room was only a hallway away by pod 1. “Bravo 3, Charlie 4.” I called in over the radio. There was a pause, and I felt my stomach drop. Maybe he had Rus too… “Bravo 3.” He replied. Thank god. “10-20?” I asked for his location. “Zone 16” he said. Good, so he was in the supply room. That wasn’t far from where I was. I turned left, made a right, went through the double doors, and approached the storage door. As I opened the door, I said “Rus, what did you find? Any weap-“ I stopped short as I realized I was talking to myself. No one was in the storage room. What the-? I called Rus in on the radio. “Bravo 3, Charlie 4.” ….. “Bravo 3, Charlie 4.” I said with a little more assertiveness. ……….. Fvck. I left the room, went back our through the double doors, and into the dark south hallway. I flicked the flashlight on and to my horror, saw a trail of blood leading down the hall. I wanted to throw up. Part of me wanted to go check it out in the off chance that Russel was still alive… But I knew better from all the horror movies. Russell was probably dead. I B lined it, and started running back to control. When I got there, it was empty. Sh1t, they must have left…. Suddenly a loud voice drifted through the building from outside. “THIS IS THE POLICE! WE’VE GOT THIS BUILDING SURROUNDED! Come out with your hands up!” Shouted an officer. Yes! Finally, some hope! Though it was mostly too late. Two people were already dead, and I was probably next…..