BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize Bestiality

ConsentCon claims our communications with animals are "not sophisticated enough" for consent.How sophisticate does communication have to be for "consent" to be valid? When a husband and wife are snuggling together in bed and his foreplay just gradually turns into sex without a single word being spoken is it rape or is their body language enough to establish consent? Suppose they are spooning and both move in for penetration at the exact same time, so neither can be said to have been the one to have "initiated" it and there's no basis to say one is dominant during the sex. Which one is the rapist? Are they both guilty of raping each other?Consider this scenario, a dog gets an erection, jumps onto a person and starts humping them and eventually gets around to penetration. The person passively sits there and takes it of their own free will, letting the dog initiate each and every part of the sexual experience, neither pushing any move on the dog or even hinting at it. How can the dog be said to be being raped or abused in this case when the dog is initiating it and the human is participating by just letting the dog have its way?Animal Language-DolphinsWhile there is considerable debate in the scientific community about the ability of apes to understand sign language, Con completely glossed over my point about Dolphins.http://en.wikipedia.org...In his experiment where he studied the ability of dolphins and humans to learn how to communicate with each other John Lilly found that bottlenose dolphins had an immediate grasp of basic semantics. Later it became apparent they could grasp syntax, distinguishing "bring the doll to the ball" from "bring the ball to the doll". The correlation between the bursts of sound from the dolphin's blowhole and the instructor's speech went from nearly zero to almost perfect.
Legalize Bestiality

Animal AbuseMy opponents argument here is that we do many other things that much worse to animals, so legalizing bestiality would not be so bad in the grand scheme of things. I do not deny that these things are also bad, but just because there are worse things going on does not mean we should continue to add to the problem before we fix those things. I would like to provide an example to illustrate what I am trying to say. For the purpose of this example, let us assume that homicide is legal, but robbery isn't. My opponent's argument is equivalent to saying in this situation that homicide is worse than robbery, so we should make robbery legal, because homicide is worse, rather than make keep robbery illegal and making homicide illegal as well.We should fix other abuse problems, not legalize more abuse.Consent"We do not ask animals for their consent to kill them so we can eat them.'Neither do we ask humans for consent before killing them. "Putting that aside what does Con base this assumption that animals can not consent on? Animals may not speak our languages, but they can and do communicate. Otherwise every time an animal had sex with another animal it would be rape."My opponent is correct in saying that animals can communicate amongst their own kind, but to expect an animal to be able to knowingly consent to sex with a human is a ludicrous proposition. "Furthermore, there are even animals that do understand human language. Some apes can be taught how to sign. Some parrots can learn how to talk."An unevidenced claim. While some scientists claim that a few apes have been taught sign language, there is still a divide in the scientific community of whether these apes actually have a full understanding of the human language [1]. As far as parrots go, they do not actually understand the language, but rather just repeat what they hear [2]. "Scientists are just beginning to decode prairie dog language, opening up the possibility of humans having full-on conversations with them in the future."This is far from the conclusion reached in my opponent's source. From his source:"'But what does it mean?' Slobodchikoff wonders. 'We have no way of getting at it'" [3].Currently, our communications with animals are not sophisticated enough to warrant a claim that animals would be able to consent to sex with a human.ConclusionMy R1 argument still stands. Sources:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...(gorilla) (Koko the gorilla)[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]- http://www.npr.org...
Legalize Bestiality

Thank you. 1. "Animal Abuse" We already do a great number of far more unpleasant things to animals that are not considered to be abuse. -We mutilate their genitalia. -We kill them and eat them. -There are many dogs which to be healthy both physically and psychologically must run for several miles every day, but owners who fail to do this are typically not charged with abuse or neglect. 2. Consent- 1. We do not ask animals for their consent to kill them so we can eat them. 2. Putting that aside what does Con base this assumption that animals can not consent on? Animals may not speak our languages, but they can and do communicate. Otherwise every time an animal had sex with another animal it would be rape. That's doubtful given that pairs of animals often stay together at least for a short period of time, if all animal reproduction had to involve rape the recipient would take off leaving as soon as they could. Furthermore, there are even animals that do understand human language. Some apes can be taught how to sign. Some parrots can learn how to talk. Scientists are just beginning to decode prairie dog language, opening up the possibility of humans having full-on conversations with them in the future. http://www.npr.org... Dolphins are also noted to have language. http://www.npr.org...
Legalize Bestiality

I accept.Definitions:Bestiality- Sexual relations between a human and an animal [1].BoP"It may be "icky" but that is not any good reason to have laws against it."All I must do to fufill my BoP is present a good reason to have laws against it.My opponent must prove that there are not good reasons to have laws against itC1: Animal abuse is and should remain illegalI can elaborate if my opponent needs me to, but I don't think it necessary.C2: Sex without consent is abuse Abuse- To force sexual activity on [2].C3: Bestiality is sex without consentAnimals are not capable of consent, therefore engaging in a sexual act with an animal is sex without consent, which is abuse. Therefore, bestiality should remain illegal.I look forward to my opponent's response.Sources:[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Judeo-Christian God's Existence Is Just As Likely As Any Other God's Existence

My opponent has forfeited his final round, thus relegating all our efforts into the black hole of unfinished debates. For those that do stumble upon this debate, note that my arguments remain unexamined by my opponent. Furthermore, he never offered evidence for his own position. All this coupled with a forfeit should be sufficient grounds to vote in my favor. Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to read our arguments and for thoughtfully casting your votes.
The Judeo-Christian God's Existence Is Just As Likely As Any Other God's Existence

My opponent has dodged the question. What he must disprove to win the debate is not that the Judeo-Christian God is more likely to exist than the 2 gods I used as examples, but instead disprove that "The Judeo-Christian God's Existence Is Just As Likely As Any Other God's Existence". All he compared the Judeo-Christian god to was the two examples I used in round one. He must show EVIDENCE that the Judeo-Christian god is MORE LIKELY to exist than ANY other god that has been believed in the history of mankind. Also, my opponent talked about the accuracy of the text of the bible compared to the holy books of other religions (Iliad, etc). Just because one holy book (the bible in this case) is 5% more accurate than a holy book of another religion, does not mean the bible's god is more likely to exist over the other god. Also, about the god being more likely to exist because more people believe in it. This is NOT PROOF that is is more likely to exist. During early Egyptian times, the gods of the Egyptian religion were more worshiped than the christian god (considering the christian god technically had not been "created" yet). Just because more people believe in 1 god over another, it doesn't mean the god is more likely to exist. Also in the future, if another God becomes more believed than the Judeo-Christian God, does that mean that God is then more likely to exist? Also, I wish to ask you a few questions... 1- If the Judeo-Christian God exists over all other gods, why are the jews and christians any more blessed than people of other world religions? 2- Why does this god not make his existence more evident? He has shown no proof that he exists over gods of every other major world religions. If he is the head-honcho why not make it clear once-and-for-all that all others are false idols?
Humans are superior to Animals

Who did you agree before and after: This is irrelevant to who won but it would be interesting to see if anyone changed his/her mind. So vote! Who had better conduct: A tie since this was a friendly debate and neither of us got angry or frustrated with our opponent. As for this comment "even a creationist can accept that" I think it was a light hearted joke though at first I found it offensive. Who had better spelling and grammar: A tie. After skimming few times I couldn't find any mistakes. Who made more convincing arguments: Pro. My opponent has forfeited the 4th round hence my arguments are untouched. Sources: I wouldn't mind if this were a tie but I did do a good job in Round 3. Anyhow this is just my opinion, feel free to vote for who you want especially if its me :D.
Humans are superior to Animals

My opponent has a ridiculous notion that the difference between "cheetahs or hippos" is comparable to the difference of humans and animals. He is wrong: http://www.realtruth.org... We also happen to have a larger and more developed cerebrum: http://www.wisegeek.com... http://webspace.ship.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... Other links: http://www.plosbiology.org... http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk... My opponent may argue that ultimately all that is different is the human brain. Though I could make a weak argument, the main question becomes plain: What do you expect? Perhaps we should have a striped skin like zebras or long necks like giraffes, would that make us different? Unless we go to the very extremes (which would dubiously cause extinction) the humans will only be different intellectually. Furthermore you picked extremely different examples of animals (hippo and cheetah) yet the intellectual difference between them is completely null when compared to the uniqueness of the human brain. What do I have to do to make my point completely clear?Write a poem?No?Ill do it anyway: Like bright sunlight Our brain shines with knowledge of good and evil truth and farce Yes we're noble Though sometimes Madly drunk or plainly ignorant So I conclude Lets not drink vodka Nor miss classes Because we are smart In fact you're reading this Stop it now You're vexing illiterate bears ................. Angry bears "even a creationist can accept that" Q.Is this relevant if not then why did you make this remark? Q.What were you trying to convey with this? Q.Is this prejudice and what response did you expect? When I said "different category" I wasn't referring to "Homo sapiens" however I admit that this misunderstanding is my fault. Sorry about this but it was frankly (at best) a trivial mistake. I was simply trying to say that when one considers my points, it becomes obvious that humans are superior. It simply is the more plausible conclusion. My second point was that when one considers religion of Christianity, it becomes obvious that man is not an animal. I am not using this argument unless you react in such a way that I am free to use religion without proving religion (I briefly explain this in my previous round). Instead of providing a lengthy rebuttal to your rebuttal, Ill simply ask a question: Have Christians ever debated if humans have souls or not? The third argument was also made to be "just in case". I can use this for various situations for example if you say that evolution proved that we're animals and etcetera. Also this was made to go hand in hand with my second argument. I don't see how I can use these points in this debate so "salut" (quotes for the sake of not making spelling errors). Hence my stance still is: "The difference between our brain and even the smartest animals is so colossal that while your view can be accepted, it is more plausible that humans are in a whole different category."(Note: The category error is already explained). Thank you for reading and feel free to comment (Especially on my poetic skills...Or lack of :D)
Humans are superior to Animals

My opponent did not contest my definitions, therefore they are accepted and flow through the debate. I would contend that this makes his first argument non-nonsensical, and even further serves to accentuate my point that humans are animals as it is made of organic matter. The size of the brain doesn't matter and is not part of any definition of an animal. Fish are animals, yet they are very different to cheetahs or hippos (even a creationist can accept that). Does this mean that fish shouldn't be considered animals? He is right that humans should be in a different category of animals, and indeed we are, Homo sapiens. But that is merely a category within the overarching term 'animal'. His second point basically reads 'Man is king of the animals'. King Henry the 8th was King of the English... he was also an Englishman, the two things are not mutually exclusive. While I do not accept that man is 'king of the animals' I argue that even if we are we can still be an animal, and 'rule over the animals'. His third point doesn't really have any relevance to the debate, I was merely pointing out similarities in the behavior of people and some animals, not making a case for evolution. I am an atheist and believe quite strongly in evolution but it is not necessary for me to convince you of this in order to win the debate, humans share characteristics with other Animals because we're all animals, made out of the same organic matter, pieced together in different ways. I look forward to my opponents response
Humans are superior to Animals

1.Humans are separate: While you could argue that humans simply have more advanced brains than other animals, the difference between our brain and even the smartest animals is so colossal that while your view can be accepted, it is more plausible that humans are in a whole different category. 2.Christianity: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock and over all the earth"Genesis 1:21 3.Evolution: Yes this view says that we are animals but if you want me to accept evolution, I will but at the same time I ask you to accept Christianity. Yes evolution and Christianity can co-exist. I don't want this to be a religious debate hence I suggest we focus on number 1.
Communism

Ok well your obviously a troll, but I'm feeling lazy so I'm not going to make another one of these so here we go. First communism has yet to be stable in the long run, if it even worked to begin with. So a smart person would wager that the system isn't compatible with the modern man. Due to the incentives that capitalism provides, which communism lacks, people only really work if they get pay equivalent to their work output. In fact communism has failed to even begin in the right ways, Marx imagined a revolution of the workers, however (except in Cuba) a communist revolution has been started by intellectuals, or the rich children of royals, or profitable business men, hardly what I'd call the down trotten working class. The people who start these revolutions are most liking the children of the bourgeoisie that communism is supposed to stomp out. And back at the barn yard my childhood, but not a very funny meme you'd do better to delve deeper into the intertubewebinet.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill

The fact of the matter, my opponent has no logical reasoning other than a religious one for denying the right to die in patient. Just as life is an unalienable right, by logic, death is the end result of life and cannot logically be denied. Is it fair to force one to suffer? Of course not. If we deny terminally ill patient their right to a timely death, then the rational thought going through the patient's mind must be committing suicide alone. We shouldn't force that to be a result. If a patient requests their death to be on their own terms and not have to face that task alone, we should honor that right. I once again request that may opponent adhere to the topic at hand.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill

that is the damn problem with countries that go awry. ohh, lets not hurt my feelings while i ask absurd questions and provoke negative thoughts. little boy, it is a free for all and i am not in bounds and shackles. but the way america is going down the tubes...we will be soon,. in a world of no moral conscience or value to life. then yeah by all means..kill each other. kill yourself kill everyone. God is part of my answer and assisting someone is murder according to the logical and sane decrees of the ten commandments,.. i answered your question. i didnt give you a recipe for grandmas chocolate chip cookies, i gave you a blunt answer. people cannot take the truth. i said it would leave many consequences. the consequences are not worth it therefor i would be against assisted suicide. oh i am also against legal marijuana. its just another lame excuse to bring decay into society. you can be honest with yourself and look at the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana and there you will see how one bad idea leads to an entire chain of bad ideas. not to mention the health problems and psychological problems marijuana causes compared to giving a sick person an appetite. its the same thing when ever you bring something unatural into life you will get unatural effects. its not even a question. i will answer how ever i choose, i am not in chains or bounds. i am free and fed up with moral decay. sue me.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill

Let's not get distracted from the topic and please refrain from hurtful language such as "Are you cold or stupid?" While I'm not saying that it certainly can have an emotional effect on the doctor who goes through with the procedure, it should be understood that the doctor is not forced to do such acts. It will be a decision of his own as he will decide his own profession and also if he will offer an assisted suicide procedure. No doctor is being forced to help in the suicide of another. The famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian who helped in the suicide of at least 130 patients still advocated the procedure until his last breath. The point being that obviously certain people are capable of handling such practices. "Dying is not a crime." as Dr. Kevorkian once stated and is certainly not selfish. It is nothing but human nature to have a desire to maintain some control over one's life and ultimate death. Needless for me to point out that bringing religion into a political debate is hardly pertinent.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill

one of the ten commandments says: thou shalt not murder. Assisted suicide is murder. assisted suicide assisted pedophilia assisted bank robbery whats the difference? they are all causing another person to commit a crime. that sounds like a really sneaky way to bring someone else down with you. and then what, after the doctor goes on living or familiy on or the lovers or the friends and children and parents go on in life after realizing they just killed someone, who is going to help them? can you imagine the guilt and issues they will face and the regret? or are you cold and stupid? if someone is on the verge of death then let em go..they will die. if someone is on life support. i dont think taking someone off life support counts as murder being that it is a machine doing all the living for the patient and its apparent they arent waking up and that they are clinically brain dead..it l depends though. but some selfish ungreatful prick asking u to kill him so he can be free while he leaves u with all the guilt and confusion and consequences and pain can just suffer and wait like the rest of us who are struggling in life. i dont think so...if they want to commit suicide...let them do it them selves. thats the whole point. other wise...its just murder. so is abortion by the way.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill

The government does not have the right to say a citizen must be forced to live against their will. A life is that of the individual and the decisions made with that life, including its existence, should be left to the person living that life. No human being should be forced to suffer through his or her disease, illness, or injury against his or her will. Assisted suicide programs help offer consolation to those who may be in a state of loneliness and despondency while also maintaining dignity in death for the patient. Death is a private matter and although it may affect the family and friends of the patient, it is still a sole right belonging to said patient alone.
All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

First of all he is claiming that he doesn't understand how showing a debate that does not concede an argument but does not disprove his claim. The important part is the first word in the topic of the debate. All unaddressed arguments are considered concessions. If I can show one possible debate that it would not be a concession he has lost. Now, unless he is going to argue that it is not possible to have that exact debate then he loses. Now, that he lost before I have even addressed his other points, it proves my side further. If you disprove the entire side without addressing the arguments it is not conceding. I do however want to go over his points just to show why I feel this was terrible. You are debating the other debater. Yes that may be true but in most debates you are trying to convince the argument. Seriously that is what he is trying to do here and he is being intellectually dishonest enough to do this. Seriously, I have to say Double R it is truly sad that you don't even grasp what you are trying to do in a debate. A debate is to convince the audience. So if you can convince the audience on your own arguments and feel you can do so without addressing your opponents arguments that does not mean you concede. I agree with part two. But what he doesn't understand again is that a debater may think it is better to present there reasons for why they take a position and feel the audience is educated enough to see through the opponents arguments rather then go over there arguments. Sadly all I have to say is part 3 contradicts part 1. That is truly sad and if my audience is not smart enough to figure out how please don't ask me to explain think about it. In conclusion, I know people will say my conduct is terrible but it is his lack of intellectual honesty that is the problem here. He presents blatantly terrible arguments and I guarantee if he sat and thought about it for more then 2 seconds he could see through them. So, before saying I lose conduct think to yourself, is it good conduct to make intentionally dishonest arguments. There is no way he can seriously think what he is saying has a semblance of truth to it.