BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should monkeys be considered persons

Monkeys have inherent values, the same as humans, so they should have rights similar to humans. No where in the world is it legal to kill another human being. Monkeys and humans are similar in DNA by 98%, if that does not prove my case I do not know what will. Blacks and white people are both humans with the same DNA makeup and at a time blacks were considered inferior and not given rights but we know today that was wrong. Monkeys and children are similar. Monkeys are capable of reason and understanding. By using some monkeys in painful experiments, and selling others to universities, federal facilities, and private laboratories, where they are imprisoned in tiny cages, cut up, poisoned, crippled, addicted to drugs, shocked, and killed we are harming ourselves. Humans are selfish animals that do not think about the future and believe if someone or something does not have the means to defend themselves they can be taken advantage of. Monkeys have been able to coexist with humans on numerous occasions. Taking animals out of their natural habitat endangers them and makes them less likely to be able to survive with their own kind. Humans know that animals feel pain so and they ignore their pain. An animals pain is morally relevant. If humans and animals are treated equally in relation to experimentation then both groups should leave alive, but that does not seem to be the case. Through monkeys humans have found out about themselves would mean that we are so alike I can better my life through the use of yours. If monkeys benefit humans so much they should be treated with respect and afforded the same rights, freedom and opportunity as humans. Therefore monkeys should be considered persons.
Should monkeys be considered persons

How can one say that animals are here to benefit us? Monkeys and chimps have similar DNA and the same ancestors which mean they are also humans. We humans were once animals. How is it possible to justify experimenting and causing unneeded pain to in essence ourselves? Human pain is not the only pain that is morally relevant. Monkeys have logic and the ability to reason, so they know when they are being hurt and are in pain. The pain an animal feels is fundamentally wrong, it is being forced onto them by humans for no reason. I mean there would not be a good reason to ignore a human"s pain and there is no justifiable reason to ignore the pain of a monkey. The system that allows humans to view animals as our resources and here for the sole benefit is wrong. The only way to change the system is to change the people who make it. Cosmetology testing on animals is the same as medical research on animals, both are harmful and unfair. Who is to say that their life should be used for experimentation? A human life has the same inherent value as a monkeys life does. Cruelty is defined as causing pain or suffering and is considered to be an act that is wrong. Monkeys have qualities that allow them to have the very basic legal right not to be imprisoned. Humans are in essence enslaving their own race because we humans have originated from the same place as monkeys have. No one, human or nonhuman deserves to be, imprisoned. If our lives are valued the same as a monkey"s life then that means both should be protected under the law. We are destroying ourselves in destroying the lives of these non-human animals. These monkeys cannot relay completely how they feel to us but it is relatively clear. When in pain they cry out for help, they have reason to try to escape; they are the closest in relation to humans so they need to be treated as such. Therefore, monkeys should be considered as persons.
Should monkeys be considered persons

1.Animals exist to benefit humans, so what harms them is irrelevant. 2.Only human pain can be morally relevant. 3.Although the pain animals suffer is real, it is not wrong if no one cares about them. 4.The pain animals suffer is not the fundamental wrong. 5.The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources and that they are only here for us. 6.Most people are not knowledgeable in that a toxicity test for cosmetics on animals is the same as using them for medical research, such as cancer. 7.Kindness is defined as acting from a certain motive, such as concern and is thought to be an act that is right. 8.Cruelty is defined as causing pain or suffering and is considered to be an act that is wrong. 9.Just as an act of kindness is not a morally right act, and act of cruelty is not a morally wrong act. 10.Humans are just as cruel to other humans as they are to animals. 11.Monkeys are not humans, they are primates and because of this they should be treated like animals, not humans. 12.Utilitarianism is a principle that states we can justify good results with evil means. 13.Although this applies to and protects humans, it applies only to them and not animals, so animals cannot be protect by this principle. 14.It is not the responsibility of humans to protect animals. 15.Inherent value is defined as existing as a permanent quality or attribute. 16.Animals, such as monkeys are not literate, and do not have the abilities or intelligence humans do, therefore they have less inherent value. 17.Only humans belong to the species group, Homo Sapiens. Therefore, monkeys should not be considered persons.
Should monkeys be considered persons

1. Primates are an order of mammals that include very primitive animals called Prosimians, as well as monkeys, apes, and humans 2. A human being is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. 3. A monkey is a small to medium-sized primate that typically has a long tail, most kinds of which live in trees in tropical countries. 4. With the exception of humans, which inhabit every continent, most primates live in tropical or subtropical regions of the Americas. 5. Humans and mammals are both in the category of primates. 6. Both humans and chimpanzees are able to walk bipedally. 7. An inherent value is having value as an individual, something that is inseparable from you, and equal between all. 8. All those who have inherent value have it equally, whether they are human or animals. 9. Monkeys, as well as all animals, should be regarded as children and therefore be protected since they cannot protect themselves. 10. Justice for monkeys should not be judged based on how many people get upset by the horrible acts against monkeys. 11. The monkey, so close to the species of human, is put through pain, suffering and surgical manipulation for money and individual profit. 12. If all, both humans and nonhumans, have inherent value then for the most part we are all one in the same. 13. The pain of an animal is morally relevant. 14. We cannot justify killing a human being for experimentation so therefore we should not be able to justify killing a monkey for experimentation either. 15. Humans have an obligation to protect and not harm nonhuman animals. 16. Animals are said not to have rights because they are not capable of responding to claims of morality, this should mean that it is then humans responsibility to exercise their rights for them in their best interests. 17. An ancestor is an earlier type of animal from which others have evolved. 18. Humans, apes, and other hominoids (gorillas, chimpanzees, and so on) all evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore, Monkeys should be considered as persons.
Absolute truth is the absolute truth.

Just want to open up by saying what a delight it is to join in this debate. This is definitely a topic that can work the mind. Absolute truth is the absolute truth. Either something is true or it is not? However consider this. We all are bound by gravity and its laws and to me it is true. However what about someone who believes they escaped these laws and was flying around freely. Not that this person claims it but that they believe it in full honesty. In their mind its true. So if it's truth for them who is to say its not true or truth. We all have various levels of perceiving our world around us for which some truths are more true than others depending on how many people share them in common. Thank you for taking the time to read my opening. Thank you.
Absolute truth is the absolute truth.

Absolute truth exists absolutely, regardless of the subjective nature of experience. The key here is the difference between what we consider facts and what we consider truth. Facts are conditional and changeable due to entropy, but truths, such as how gravity works, are immune to such change. Because such things are immutable, unchangeable, and constant, they are in fact absolute truths. The possible existence of another universe doesn't negate these truths because one could come up with any scenario in which something fundamental could not work, but that only proves the power of the human imagination and not the reality in which we find ourselves.
Absolute truth is the absolute truth.

First I want to address the issue with subjective experience versus objective experience: If one's reality were to bend toward their subjective opinions and experience, then we would see people performing feats that would otherwise be impossible. This is not what is observed in the collective human experience as we clearly don't see people defying gravity to fly or accessing super speed to dodge bullets etc. Even if a person were to truly believe in their own subjective experience, others on the outside would witness their claims and possibly call them mad. An insane person sitting in a padded room might be unable to distinguish his own illusions with reality and might believe they are flying over Earth's major cities, but that doesn't affect the fact that they are still in that padded room. Secondly, I want to re-iterate the difference between facts and truths. As said in the initial post, facts are conditional and are more of a snapshot of consequences being pulled from a working logical system while a truth is the logical system itself. It is a fact that I exist in the country mankind has named United States of America, but if I were to move to another country, that fact would no longer be correct. To say that everyone experiences their own unique set of facts that pertain to their current existence in time/space is obviously correct, but the truths in the universe always apply without any contradictions. While our general vocabulary leads us to use Facts, Truth, True, and Real as synonyms; they should not possess the same definitions. Another interesting effect of assuming Absolute truth to be real is the existence of dinosaurs. At the moment of their existence, we could say that it is a fact that they exist, but that fact will change over time and become almost untrue (Ignoring the creatures that evolved from them). Now we can say that dinosaurs used to exist and it is no longer just a fact but is an absolute truth because their past existence will never change. It seems that what is true can only be confidently said to be a truth if it is cemented into the past . .. besides the universal laws.
God probably exists.

My opponent makes no argument at all, however, merely makes several fallacies. First, he proposes that the big bang theory created everything, which is wrong. First, if one wanted to be technical, the big bang didn't created me, you, the Internet, or cars, among other things. Second, if my opponent didn't mean "everything" when he said "everything" and he meant the creation of the Universe, that would be incorrect, too, because the Big Bang Theory describes the early development of the Universe, not its creation. [1] So, I'd agree that if I believed that the Big Bang created everything by definition or "everything" as I think my opponent meant it; I would have one heck of an imagination! My opponent then states: "who created us. [? ]" My opponent asserts that the Bible proves God created us. The Bible is the name given to a collection of books that, when put together creates the Holy Scripture of the Christian faith. My opponent has not given any proof that I am inclined to believe the Bible. The Bible makes claims that, while some may be true, others (such as the existence of God) cannot be verified. If they can, my opponent gives no evidence for this. I have thus far met my burden of refuting my opponent's suggestions. I await my opponent's response(s)! Source: [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
God probably exists.

Welcome to this debate, everyone! This is a common topic that is oft debated and I want a piece (or another piece...) of the action, so to speak. Now, for the purposes of this debate; I will define God as following: The (notice the definite article - only God) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator of the Universe that is described in the Bible. The rules are as follows: 1) First round is not for acceptance only, Pro must present opening arguments in round one. 2) Fifth round is closing statements only, no new arguments or refutes. 3) A forfeit of a round is an irreversible breach of conduct. If both players forfeit; conduct is "tied". 4) The BoP is on Pro. Con can give arguments to show that God probably doesn't exist, but that is not a necessary burden. 5) You agree with the definition of God as described above. 6) You agree to these rules by accepting the debate. I believe that's all; if anyone has any questions, please post a comment. Good luck to all, and allez!
The teaching of "the Laws are done away with" by Catholics & Christians is FALSE

The doctrine that "the Laws of God are done away with" is not according to the Scriptures. We are still commanded by God and Christ, to keep all the Laws. Rules of debate:1. Challenger MUST be a Christian or Catholic.2. Challenger MUST use the Bible ONLY as evidence.3. Challenger CANNOT change the topic of the talking point.4. Challenger CANNOT change rules of debate. *If any of the above rules are disobeyed, it will result in CON automatically losing this debate.Arguments:R1 - Acceptance and agreement only, of the five statues listed above.R2 - Arguments/RefutesR3 - Arguments/RefutesR4 - Arguments/RefutesR5 - Concluding statements If you have any questions pertaining to the topic of the debate, please ask them in the comment section before accepting this debate.*NOTE: I will not change the rules of the debate nor will I make any alterations to the discussion of this debate.
Children have the right to their own religion

I humbly accept Pro's apology and offer one of my own. I should have realized that he was not attacking me personally and I should not have gotten offended so easily. I am sorry. Now back to the debate. Pro quotes himself and then goes on to ask "Why should the child be forced to perform the rituals that pertain to a religion that has no emotional impact on said child?" If there is no emotional impact on the child, other than possibly boredom, then there is obviously no harm coming to the child. Parents make their children go to church for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes, especially in a small community they do because it is what is expected of them from their friends and neighbors. Other times the parents truly believe that if there child does not share their beliefs, their child, whom they love dearly, will go to hell. Both are legitimate reasons for making your child go to church. I would imagine that the most common reason is simply to be a part of the family and the family activities. I do not believe it is right for a parent to force their children through abuse to follow any religious ceremonies. However it is within the parents rights to deny their children leisure activities such as video games, etc. should the child willfully disobey them, by refusing to pray at a meal, or attend church with the rest of the family. Pro has offered a "children's bill of rights" as a source. Follow my above links and judge for yourself if it is a "legal" document that has been "ratified by seven countries." Pro even admits that it has no legal standing in any country, despite his first assertion of its ratification. I am a proud parent of two epically awesome sons. I am also an atheist. The majority of my wife and I's family are christians. One of our aunts takes the boys to church every sunday and wednesday. At some point, probably around age ten but maybe sooner, the boys will ask me why I don't go to church. I will tell them then what I believe, and they can make their own decision about what to believe. But that is my choice as a parent in how to handle the issue of faith and religion. It might not work for everyone but it works for me.
Children have the right to their own religion

I apologize for offending you, that was not my intent. First, I would like to quote myself. "While the child may not believe in the religion itself..." says that the child does not have to actually believe in the religion. But what use is there to bringing the child to these religious events if they don't believe in the core of the religion itself? Why should the child be forced to perform the rituals that pertain to a religion that has no emotional impact on said child? If the child has no will to follow the religion, then there is no reason to force the child to participate in that religion's activities. Let me elaborate on my previous argument on the "abuse" topic. I was not trying to equate corporal punishment with abuse. Again, I apologize for offending you. I was merely saying that the parent could use physical punishment as means to force the child into religious activities. I believe corporal punishment is completely acceptable, I even think that the laws on corporal punishment are too harsh on the parents. I am just saying that spanking the child is not acceptable when it pertains to what religion said child follows. Con pointed out that eating a cookie is something that allows the parent to punish the child. The act of eating the cookie is not the part that is socially unacceptable. It is the act of defying authority. Defying authority is completely unacceptable, but not the cookie itself. Con made a good argument on the impact of religion, but I believe they misunderstood me. I am not talking of social problems, these can be dealt with easily, through understanding and acceptance. I was referring to the future of the individual, not society as a whole. If I wanted to be an astronaut, my religion would not affect my ability or my determination of becoming that astronaut. The Children's Bill of Rights is a completely legal document. It is just not a legally certified law of any country. But this does not mean it is an unofficial document. Children have all of those rights listed, every single right is completely fair and just. I know I sound like a broken record, but I greatly apologize for offending you. This was no where near my intent, and I hope no hard feelings have been made. Parents have every right to control a child's life, but they must understand that these controlling decisions may hinder the child's ability to succeed in life. That's the goal of every parent, right? While I realize that many religions believe it is the parents responsibility to teach the child about their spiritual duties, they might as well just let it go if the child is unwilling to learn those duties. For example, in the Christian religion, the main aspect is to have complete faith in God. The child who does not believe in God will go to hell, whether they went to church every Sunday or not. The parent had their chance to teach the child of their religious practices while they were still young and ignorant, but once they realize that the religion the parents had picked out for them was not the right one, it has become too late.
Children have the right to their own religion

Excellent. I'd like to first correct Pro on one thing. I never claimed parents could not "..."force" a child to follow a certain religion." In fact i pointed out that parents could force a child to perform the various ceremonies of their religion. What I said was one cannot force someone to "believe" in a religion without serious damage to their psyche. Pro stated the following as well: "Con also claimed that physical and emotional abuse are illegal. This is true to an extent, but not wholly. Corporal punishment is still legal within the United States. While it is true that a parent cannot whip a child with a belt anymore, spanking or slapping the child is completely legal." Pro is attempting to equate corporal punishment with abuse. I take great offense to this as I was spanked by my parents and I spank my two boys. Spanking or slapping a child is not abuse. I do recognize that there is a very fine line between abuse and discipline. If a parent were to spank a child because they told them they did not believe in God, that could probably be seen as abuse. Especially if it happened repeatedly, and dependent upon the severity. But again, we already have laws that govern child abuse, and so long as a parent does not abuse their child, then there is no harm. by definition, abuse means harm is coming to the child. Pro also points out that a child should not be punished for doing something that is deemed ok by society. That is absurd. There is not a child alive, nor an adult alive, that as a child was punished for eating a piece of candy, or a cookie, when they were told NO, or not given permission. Pro also argues that religion has no direct effect on an individuals future. Last time I checked, religion, for better or worse, has been the single most powerful force in all of history, shaping it at every turn. Entire wars have been fought based simply on a belief. To state that it has no direct effect on a person is absurd. I did a two google searches: http://www.google.com... and http://www.google.com... Wikipedia shows no such bill of rights, and the first google search turns up this: http://www.newciv.org... the above is in no way a legal document. I had brought up the age limit to hold public office as an example of how we, as a society, feel about the idea of "life experience" and how important it is. I want to be clear. A parent should never, NEVER, be allowed to abuse a child. We have many ways of protecting children from abuse, but unfortunately they are not perfect. Nothing ever is. Children have protection from abuse. Parents also have the right to raise their children as they see fit. From what movies and television programs they are allowed to watch, to what kind of food they are allowed to eat. When they can go out, when they have to stay in. Parents control virtually every aspect of their child's lives. This includes going to church and any other ceremonies. As a parent, I believe you have to strike a balance of giving your child freedom while telling them what to do. But that's me, that's my decision.