BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism

I will admit that I too have reserves about how often this topic is often used and abused by people. People can simply take the name and abuse it, but at its core as we both agree, it is merely about restoring equality. Thank you for the concession and a wonderful debate. I will merely type no argument due to concession for the following rounds. Be sure to award much needed conduct points to my adversary, as he was so polite with his concession. Thanks to everyone who read all this
Feminism

I'm new here, so I have no clue if this is the place to say this or not. So I'm just going to wing it. You sir, have changed my mind. I concede this debate. I would however, like to point out, that he is correct in saying that I just don't like feminism. I do agree with feminist theory, and I can get behind many of the feminist points. However, I do not feel that this is truly what the feminist community holds to. In my experience, I have found that much of feminism has been about the "patriarchy" (I wont get into that) and seems to paint men as evil, and the reason behind the evil in our society. While it could easily be said that this has all been from the extremists, I have yet to run into a feminist who isn't an "extremist." Before I get incredibly off topic, I would like to thank my former adversary for breaking down feminism without an argument riddled with fallacies. That was the first time I've truly heard a legitimate counter argument to my points that wasn't riddled with red herrings, emotional appeal, straw men, and just overall ridiculous claims. I still do not agree with feminism, simply because I believe that instead of individual groups that focus on the rights of a certain gender, race, nationality, ect... we would be much stronger if we all united and fought for all human rights, where ever we are needed. I thank you Mikal for educating me.
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

My opponent sets out some definitions and attempts to salvage her forfeit. Since there isn't much to refute (the majoriy is reiterating things that have been said or definitions), I shall go along and quote certain sentences in which there is an actual argument: {quote}Animals have something called 'Freedoms'. These are not 'rights' but moral guidelines for people. They are guidelines to ensure good animal welfare. A human (as they are conscious) should abide by them, as no human should want to hurt another living being, human or animal. {endquote} Again, you are making a peculiar philosophical claim - with no reason to back it up. If you agree that an animal has no rights, and is essentially amoral, there IS NO burden that humans need to abide by to the animal. Humans are allowed to do ANYTHING with an animal, as long it doesn't affect others in a negative way. Take a rock for example. Should I be able to do anything with it? Of course! I can chuck it in a river, bury it, or take it home as a pet rock. However, if I throw it at someone (which violates an entity with rights), then it becomes an issue of right or wrong. {quote}Docking and cropping defies the point of these Freedoms. {endquote} Hilarious. You list 5 "animal freedoms", say docking and cropping violate these points, and say case closed? OBVIOUSLY, this entire debate has been about whether or not they even deserve freedoms, which is just another way of saying rights. You have given up this claim, so there is nothing more to be said on this. {quote}Owners are responsible for their pets. Dogs are amoral; however, their owners are not, which makes the decision of docking and cropping purely for aesthetic reasons inhumane, therefore immoral. {endquote} . .. seriously? The owner is the one doing the docking! Nothing you do can be considered immoral UNLESS it affects another person (one with rights) in a negative manner. Dogs have no rights, ergo no "wrong".
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

Definitions - Humane: Characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed. Rights: Entitlements. Some rights (human rights) belong to everyone by virtue of being human; some rights (legal rights) belong to people by virtue of their belonging to a particular political state. 1. Animals do not have rights and it is highly unlikely they will ever have rights. This is because they are incapable of being rational. Fair enough, there is nothing that can be done about it. 2. Rights are Man made. If it wasn't for Man, there would be no need for 'Rights'. Rights are put into place to ensure the civility of human-kind. 3. Animals have something called 'Freedoms'. These are not 'rights' but moral guidelines for people. They are guidelines to ensure good animal welfare. A human (as they are conscious) should abide by them, as no human should want to hurt another living being, human or animal. The 5 Animal Freedoms: 1. Freedom from discomfort. 2. Freedom to express natural behaviour. 3. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition. 4. Freedom from pain and suffering. 5. Freedom injury and disease. Docking and cropping defies the point of these Freedoms. 4. Animals, by definition, are indeed amoral. However, humans are not. Dogs are the owners responsibility. Docking and cropping is inhumane. 5. Cropping ears in many cases leads to infections. Docking tails can lead to genital problems if done incorrectly. Any type of surgery to remove ears or tails holds a high risk of infections and disease. This will inevitably cause the dog pain and suffering. 6. Docking for medical reasons is justified. Docking for the sake of it, is not. -- Owners are responsible for their pets. Dogs are amoral; however, their owners are not, which makes the decision of docking and cropping purely for aesthetic reasons inhumane, therefore immoral. --
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

Again, my opponent does not seem to understand the importance of rights, especially in a debate involving ethics. Because she has yet to leave this pool of misunderstanding, this debate won't seem to be able to lift off it's feet, once again. =================== Relevance of rights =================== {quote}To begin with, the fact that animals do not have rights is not crucial. This is because 'Rights' are Man made, just like laws and regulations.{endquote} If rights are purely man made, then are they not subject to change - perhaps by the majority? Are you saying that it's feasible that the right to life can be revoked? OF COURSE rights are crucial to this debate - in fact, most debates. If it's been established that animals don't have any rights (which my opponent has conceded to), then by definition they are amoral. {quote}My argument is, what is actually 'right' about cropping and docking? The answer is nothing.{endquote} There can be many reasons. For many animals, it serves for more so of a preventive method from potential harms, such as docking the tails of horses to prevent it being tangled with agricultural instruments. In relevance to dogs, cropping and docking is usually done to either protect the dog from infections due to bug bites (usually the ear), to prevent hunting dogs to get their tail caught, and usually for "aesthetic purposes". EVEN IF it's as trivial as making the dog look nicer, it still is NOT immoral. It's, in fact, amoral because my opponent has conceded that dogs have no rights. {quote}Just because animals do not have rights, it does not mean it is right to mutilate perfectly healthy body parts.{endquote} QUITE to the contrary. ==================== Conclusion ==================== If my opponent cannot even come to understand the relevance of rights, then this debate will go nowhere. Anyone with a modicum of philosophical knowledge knows that any debate with the word "wrong" or "immoral" in it HAS TO de
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

Actually, my opponent is very much mistaken in his assumption that I have 'unwittingly' agreed wholly to his side of the debate. A good debater is one who can see both sides of the argument and can admit to facts, manipulating them to suit his or her argument. Looking at The Skeptics debating record, I thought he would've known this. Now, let's proceed. To begin with, the fact that animals do not have rights is not crucial. This is because 'Rights' are Man made, just like laws and regulations. Animals have no need for this, since they have no conscience. This has already been established. However, animals do have a brain. They experience the same reactions to certain stimuli as humans do, such as stress, anxiety, contentment, pain, etc. Therefore, dogs cannot be compared to rocks - another invalid point. Dogs work in social groups, just like humans. Although they do not have 'spoken language' they do have communication. Dogs communicate primarily through body language. The ears and tail are two of the most important factors associated with this type of communication. Now, what is crucial is that humans DO have consciousness and thus the ability to choose what is right and wrong. My argument is, what is actually 'right' about cropping and docking? The answer is nothing. There are no benefits to this practice whatsoever, thus making it 'wrong'. Is it right for a human to kick his dog or set fire to his horse's mane, just because he needed to let off some steam? No, it is not. Just because animals do not have rights, it does not mean it is right to mutilate perfectly healthy body parts. As you can see, my argument still stands and my opponent has managed to waste two rounds without actually putting forward a valid argument.
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

==================== My opponent has conceded this debate unwittingly ==================== My opponent actually agrees with many of my points! In fact, she even complies with my argument that animals don't have rights, and thus are not on the same moral platform as humans. She goes on to say that this would only be valid in an "Animals Should Have Rights" debate, and that this has nothing to do with this debate. I'm sorry to say that my opponent is gravely mistaken. When we are talking about the ethics of mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons, then whether or not they have rights is CRUCIAL. If something were to have no rights, then it is effectively amoral. Rocks have no rights, so we can do whatever we want to them (unless you throw it at a person, who has rights). It's simple. Once my opponent has admitted that animals don't have rights, then she has conceded this debate. In fact, I was going to argue along the lines of relieving animals of unnecessary suffering (animal welfare), but it seems my opponent has taken the extra stride for me :). ==================== Conclusion ==================== The vote is clear and obvious: PRO.
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

I am sorry to hear that your previous 'animal rights' opponents 'garnered poor argument' hopefully I will not be added to that list. Also, the 2,000 character limit is so we can get straight to the point. I completely agree with the majority of your previous post: - Animals do not have rights. - Dogs do not have language and therefore do not have higher forms of abstract thinking. - Dogs are not on the same moral platform as humans. This information would be valid in an 'Animals Should Have Rights' debate; however, it does not justify why it is 'a-okay' to mutilate a dog for aesthetic reasons, it purely implies that humans have a conscience. Humans have a unique ability to be aware of their surroundings (consciousness), thus resulting in emotions and feelings which, traditionally speaking, dogs do not possess. Humans also have the fundamental ability of knowing what is morally and ethically right and wrong. What makes it morally and ethically right to mutilate a dog purely for aesthetics? What are the benefits? I shall allow my opponent to 'expose more arguments' before I continue. Make them good :)
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

My other animal rights debate have usually garnered poor argument from the other side, so I do hope that this one will not fall to the same fate ;) I agree with all of my opponent's definitions and terms. Finally, I want to note to the audience that my main arguments in this debate are not necessarily ones I support. Recently, I've been somewhat bored with a repeat of debates I have been doing. Therefore, I've put it to myself to use either 1) arguments I rarely use and/or 2. argument I don't support. Of course, I personally am still against animal rights :). Anyway, no more time for small talk, onto the debate: ==================== Animals do not have rights ==================== Simply put, because animals do not have consciousness, they do not deserve rights. How then, does consciousness arise in an organism? I will argue along the same lines of Julian Jaynes and his ideas of bicameralism, which originated in his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"[1]. Language is a primary, if not necessary, part of subjective consciousness and in general, higher forms of abstract thinking. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Because animals do not have language, but instead communication, they do not have access consciousness, thus meaning they are not on the same moral platform as humans, thus meaning mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons is a-okay. I'm sorry, but that is all. There is a 2000 character limit, so I can't espouse more arguments. This will do for now. ---References--- 1. . http://www.julianjaynes.org...
Mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons

This is a debate on the mutilation of dogs, namely ear and tail docking and ear cropping, for aesthetic reasons. I shall be taking the 'against' role. I would like to begin with some definitions: Aesthetic and mutilation were taken from http://www.dictionary.com... - Aesthetic 1. Pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics. 2. Having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty. 3. Pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality. - Mutilation: (Oxford Dictionary) 1. To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting. 2. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part. - Tail docking: (The Veterinary Dictionary) 1. The surgical removal of a tail, but with approximately 2.5 inches left. - Ear docking: (The Veterinary Dictionary) 1. The surgical removal of an ear exterior. - Ear cropping: (The Veterinary Dictionary) 1. To artificially manipulate ears to point upwards through surgery. Please inform if these definitons are not satisfactory. I will begin by introducing the topic, but I shall leave the beginning of the debate to my opponent. It is popular belief that wolves were domesticated by Man thousands of years ago, for companionship and slave work (such as hunting). In modern society, dogs are still kept for work and as companions. They are all born with a tail and two ears; however, it has been common practice to crop ears and to dock the tails and sometimes the ears of particular breeds, such as the doberman, rottweiler, great dane and pitt bull. My question is why? It is still done in USA and many other countries; however, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 prohibited the docking of tails and cropping of ears of dogs purely for aesthetic reasons, in the UK. Thank you to the person who takes up this debate :)
The principle of empirical verifiability by David Hume is seriously flawed

. .. What? Voters, my opponent has done what they call a "cop-out". I have NOT conceded the flaw nor have I said it is self-refuting. Obviously in logic, something can't be circular and valid at the same time (unless you're one of those wacky Dialetheists, but that's besides the point). He has specifically ignored or failed to read (he had 3 days to reply and he did so in half a day, he had plenty of time) my point about HEURISTICS. I argued that the verification principle, being a meta-theory, is exempt from the "verifying process". INSTEAD, we rely on heuristics, as we do for other meta-theories. Look at Occam's Razor and the scientific method. Is there any empirical support for these methods? Obviously not. But we have good heuristic reasons to support these maxims. Ladies and gentleman, I was hoping to have a good debate, but my opponent has failed to read my main argument. Heck, if he was to just read my conclusion then he could have gotten a summary of my entire argument: "My main argument against my opponent is that he applies the wrong standard of "verification" for a meta-theory. He should turn his attention to heuristics, not empirical knowledge. "
The principle of empirical verifiability by David Hume is seriously flawed

I would like the voters to take note that even my opponent agrees that the principle of empirical verification is self-defeating. Therefore it is seriously flawed. I have proved my case and my opponent agrees with the flaw I have discovered. 1. I claimed that the principle of empirical verification is seriously flawed. 2. The fact that the principle is self-defeating is a serious flaw. (Kind of saying there is no truth.) 3. Therefore, I have proved my case. The principle of empirical verification can't even support its own weight! It's the exact same as saying, "There is no truth." (Is that a truth?) [quote]A meta-theory, on the other hand, is a "theory of a theory". It attempts to explain, or perhaps limit/guide the scope of theories. Such examples are the verification principle (the topic at hand), and the famous Occam's Razor. The crucial difference is that meta-theories do NOT need to be empirically verified, but rather heuristically.[/quote] The scientific method is NOT *self-defeating*. It can support its own weight. According to the standards of the empirical verificaion, it is "a meaningless propositions". [quote]He basically argues that since the verification principle is self-refuting (is the verification principle verifiable?), then it must be in error.[/quote] No. It is seriously flawed, not totally false. I believe this is all I need to win my debate.
The principle of empirical verifiability by David Hume is seriously flawed

Wow, a very fast response. Let's get going then. My opponent's argument is probably the most common criticism of the verification principle, formulated by the likes of Hume and Popper. He basically argues that since the verification principle is self-refuting (is the verification principle verifiable?), then it must be in error. That being said, my response follows: ========== Difference between a meta-theory and a theory ========== In simplest terms, a theory is an explanation of natural phenomena. Einstein's Relativity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. All theories can be empirically verified, for that is part of the essential meaning of a theory. A meta-theory, on the other hand, is a "theory of a theory". It attempts to explain, or perhaps limit/guide the scope of theories. Such examples are the verification principle (the topic at hand), and the famous Occam's Razor. The crucial difference is that meta-theories do NOT need to be empirically verified, but rather heuristically. For example, most people would agree with Occam's Razor (OR), and I'm sure my opponent does. But what empirical verification do we have for OR? Heck, what verification do we have for the scientific method? There is none, but we have heuristic reasons to agree with it. Same thing with the verification principle. ========== Conclusion ========== My main argument against my opponent is that he applies the wrong standard of "verification" for a meta-theory. He should turn his attention to heuristics, not empirical knowledge.
The principle of empirical verifiability by David Hume is seriously flawed

The principle of empirical verifiability does not pass its own test. The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful prepositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) Those that are empirically verifiable (can be verified using the five senses). Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful. The claim that "something can only be meaningful if it's empirically verifiable or true by definition" excludes itself because the statement is neither empirically verifiable nor true by definition. This is all I need to say.
The principle of empirical verifiability by David Hume is seriously flawed

You may greet your opponent or the audience. Rules: 1) No off-topic 2) No spamming, flaming nor trolling 3) No evidence nor arguments shall be presented in the first round. The priciple of empirical verifiability by David Hume is a principle that states that: Propositions can be meaningful only if they meet one or more of the two conditions, A) The truth clam is abstract reasoning such as a mathematical equation or a definition (e. g. , "2+2=4" or "all triangles have three sides"); or B) The truth claim can be verified empirically through one or more of the five senses. This principle may look reasonable and logical, however it is flawed (and false). Why? We'll get to that in the next round. Good luck to anyone who accepts my debate and hello to the spectators ;)
The United States should pursue better relations with Cuba

Cuba, a country founded in 1868 with a communist revolution in 1956 led by Fidel Castro, is still a threat to the United States. On January 25, 1898, in the harbor in Havana, the USS Maine was blown to pieces killing 252 US sailors. This event would being the United States' tension with Cuba. On December 2, 1956, Cuba experienced its' communist revolution that ushered Fidel Castro as head of state. In 1961, an invasion of CIA-trained Cuban exiles landed in Southern Cuba who tried to overthrow Fidel Castro and the communist government. This invasion failed and raised tensions higher with Cuba. In 1962, the climax of US-Cuban relations was reached when the US became aware of Soviet missiles being prepared for launch on Cuba. The US launched a naval blockade around Cuba and order Soviet ships not to go to Cuba but to turn around and head back to the USSR. The US threatened to take military action by threatening to strike Cuban bases and launch an invasion by US forces on the island nation. The blockade worked and prevented a possible nuclear World War III. In 1963, the United States imposed its' complete diplomatic and commercial embargo on Cuba. A travel ban to Cuba was also in place for US citizens. The United States should not seek relations with Cuba because Cuba's human rights abuses. Cuba had the second-highest number of imprisoned journalist of any nation in 2008. Cuba restricts technological advancements. Computer ownership rates are extremely low and the Internet is only allowed in selected places and are extremely monitored. In fact, you can be sent to prison for 5 years just for connecting to the Internet illegally. Supporters of the democratic process in Cuba who commit a crime face arrest ant imprisonment. Cuba has the largest prison system in Latin America. It includes 40 maximum security prisons, 30 minimum security, and 200 work camps. These prisons are notorious for being substandard and unhealthy. The government of Cuba in fact is still a socialist state with Marxist-Leninist influence. The United States should not support a country that infringes on the rights of its citizens. Cuba has detained many citizens of the United States including US citizen Alan Gross accused of spying. The United States has called Cuba to release Gross who was sentenced in December for taking Internet equipment into the country. Cuba has refused. In 2001, The United States captured 5 Cubans for spying for the Cuban government. So why support a country that has arrested our citizens and is spying on us? This is not acceptable!