BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PETA is a wonderful organization.

PETA is a religion now, huh? I'm not surprised I've seen it as such for a while now. "They are a group of people trying to force their beliefs and standards on people, the way they go about is unethical. Their blatant disregard for human and animal rights is ignorant. " Blaming many for the actions of some is not justified for any religion or other group. If 5 people rape and kill 20 people each in a certain area while there are 50 other people that are protecting potential victims and donating to charity, should the region be known just for the bad? No, it is important to know of the bad of course but you can't blame an entire group for what some people do. Unless you can prove that every member of PETA dumps kittens in dumpsters you have no point. Good luck because I'm a member and I have done no such thing. About the closest is when a kitten died I put her in a hot pocket box and buried her in my front yard. It was a full funeral really but only me my mom my oldest two brothers and my friend showed up. "What kind of animal rights organization would rather kill animals because 1. Its more cost efficient 2. They cant and/or wont find homes for them 3. They believe animals should be killed rather than placed in captivity i. e zoos, reserves. ." One that has room to improve. Lots of room. But because it is bringing the wrongness to the attention of many it is justified and a wonderful "religion" . It has some evils too that could be improved upon, every religion does to my knowledge. I don't blame her for being against it. Seeing as how your new you probably don't know my firm position that I refuse to use medicine until animal testing has ended. I wouldn't say same rights as retarded children, just small children, same basic point. See the comments for my position on whale and human life. Depends on which is most likely to survive and be productive. Dogs are loyal, helpful, and smart. Children tend to be the opposite. I agree animals have the right to a long healthy life no matter where it is, just as humans do. I never denied parts of it need to be improved. Just that PETA is a wonderful organization that makes people more aware of what is happening in the world. They need to focus on fur and testing first. When that is gone start working on circus's and zoos that are not ethical the whole time working on abusive pet owners. If they prioritize and become a tad less radical I'm sure the government will listen and I'm sure they will make a difference. I am confident that change is coming for PETA, for animals, and for the world. If that makes me a bigot then I'm surprised, but you can say I'm anything you want, I know who and what I am, I know what I believe in and I know that a difference will be made. Even if I get vote bombed just for being me and being pro-peta on a debate.
PETA is a wonderful organization.

Aspects of religion include narrative, symbolism, beliefs, and practices that are supposed to give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life. Whether the meaning centers on a deity or deities, or an ultimate truth, religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws and ethics and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures, with continental differences. PETA is a religion. They are a group of people trying to force their beliefs and standards on people, the way they go about is unethical. Their blatant disregard for human and animal rights is ignorant. What kind of animal rights organization would rather kill animals because 1.Its more cost efficient 2.They cant and/or wont find homes for them 3. They believe animals should be killed rather than placed in captivity i.e zoos, reserves.. PETA killed many of these animals using illegal poisons and then to save costs they threw the dead bodies of kittens and puppies into dumpsters. Not exactly a noble end for the animals they love to worship. eTA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk once said even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, "we'd be against it." "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." -Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA "We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." -Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA, "To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off." -Bill Maher, PeTA celebrity spokesman "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PeTA, "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." -Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society Regan when asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the ocean: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." -Tom Regan http://www.vegetariansareevil.com... Hypocrisy The fact of the matter is PETA is not an ethical organization. They say they advocate animal rights but do they really? Every animal has the right to live a long healthy life whether its in the wild or in a shelter or as someones pet. Who is PETA to say that an animal would rather die than live in a home, zoo, shelter..etc? To me it seems PETA is actually proud of the bigotry they so openly and willingly admit to.
PETA is a wonderful organization.

PETA's methods of awareness include insensitivity, ignorance, violence, vandalism, sexism, racism and hypocrisy PETA has compared Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust to farm animals and Jesus Christ to pigs. PETA's religious campaigns include a website that claims—despite ample evidence to the contrary—that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs "died for their sins." PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't't be allowed. And its infamous "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign crassly compared the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide to farm animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a national animal rights group, posted giant photographs of people, mostly black Americans, being tortured, sold and killed, next to photographs of animals, including cattle and sheep, being tortured, sold and killed. For instance, in 2003 PETA and other animal liberation groups filed suit to prevent zoos in San Diego and Tampa from importing African elephants endangered by overcrowding. National Review writer Wesley Smith observed that the court denied PETA's request for an injunction, saying that unless they were brought to the U.S. the elephants would be culled by South African authorities, since their numbers were a danger to the ecosystem of the famous Kruger National Park. The court said putting the elephants in zoos would save their lives. But the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that the elephants "will be better off if … killed rather than imported and placed in zoos." PETA believes animals should be killed rather than placed in homes and shelters. PETA says it kills animals to prevent animal suffering and humiliation. But if animals and humans have the same rights, then what stops PETA from harming humans too? This question may seem far-fetched, but there is a slippery slope between the ravings of the organization and the activism of its constituent members. PETA's documented ties to violent activists, its deceitful tactics and its considerable financial resources create a frightening picture we dare not ignore.
the affect society have on our youth

LATLY IN PHILDELPHIA,THE DEALTH RATE HAS GROWN...AM SURE MANY KNOW OF THE MANY VOILENCE THAT OCCURED IN PHILDELPHIA..AND AM SURE YOU HEARD OF SILLY STUPID GAMES KNOWN AS THE CHOCKING GAME.AND THE MANY TEENS THAT GET HIGH...NOW TELL ME AGAIN THAT HAS TO DO FULLY OF PARENTING SKILLS.SOCIETY HAS PLACE THE FARE IN OUR YOUTH THAT IF YOU DONT DO WHAT YOUR FRIENDS DO, THEN YOUR NOT COOL...KNOW I DONT KNOW NOT ONE KID THAT HAS NOT DONE SOMETHNG JUST CASUSE THEIR FRIENDS DID IT...AND EVEN WITH THEIR PARENTS GIVING THEM SKILL TO SAY NO TO PURE PRESSURE. SOCIETY HAS OUR KIDS IN A GAP..AND UNTILL EVERYONE JOIN IN TOGTHER AND WORK HARD..SOCIETY IS GOING TO KEEP TAKING OUR KIDS FROM US.
the affect society have on our youth

"to began my argument agree that society has place lots of programs to help youth excels if that the case then high school drop out would not be so high" Again, you have stated something completely false. The vast majority of American youth are not high school dropouts. In addition, the percentage of high school dropouts in the USA is clearly decreasing; implying society's affect on its youth is in the right direction. This statistical information showing these statements to be true is form the SSBR also know as The White House Social Statistics Briefing Room. From the year 1972 to 2004 total High School dropout rates have dropped from 14.6% to 10.3%, the table also shows that almost each year, progress is made in lowering the dropout rate in American youth. Almost each year, the drop out rate declined. (1) "so i think that with society, you have i pods and computers...but that society...they place new electronics on the market everyday...due to the fact that they know with good advertising it would get bought" Again, I really don't see this as an issue one can blame on society over the lack of proper parenting. The people have every right to sell and advertise electronics. If a kid's electronic toys are preventing him from concentrating in academic subjects, it is the parent's responsibility to take them away, plain and simple. SOURCES: (1) http://nces.ed.gov...
the affect society have on our youth

I accept this challenge. Firstly, the resolution you have offered is "the affect society have on our youth" You have challenged me to this debate and taken the Pro side, implying that you agree with what society has to offer to our youth. Yet the argument you have written above seems to be implying that you disagree with what society has to offer children, a clear contradiction. You seem to be a bit confused.... For the sake of argument, I am going to assume you disagree with the impact society has on our youth, since that is what your argument in round 1 implies. You said: "SOCIETY HAS PUT IN OUR YOUNG PEOPLE MIND THAT, U CAN BE WHAT EVER YOU WANT..BUT THEY NEVER TELL HOW YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK FOR IT" Simply not true. For just about every job in which one becomes a working member of society, one needs to know at the very least, the basics of Math, Science, and English. Even in public schools academic subjects such as Math, Science, History, English, and Literature are taught to the youth of America to advance their education, for the purpose of preparing them, at the very least, to hold a steady Job. Our society wants its youth to learn a broad range of subjects by the time they are out of high school so that the individual youth may keep their job options open. Different Jobs require different amounts of knowledge in different fields of academia. Once past the fundamental education stages (High School), people tend to chose careers, which is exactly where college comes in handy. IE: If one wants to be an accountant, one may take a course in accounting to learn how to be an accountant, Simple. Society has provided methods of education it's youth in career fields. "I FELL LIKE OUR SOCIETY HAS GROWN LAZY.TO THE PRESSURE OF BEING LIKE OTHER PEOPLE..AND WHEN THEY REALIZE THAT BEING LIKE SOMEONE ELSE WILL NOT WORK IN LIFE.THATS WHEN THEY GROW LAZY." While I agree society has grown lazy, I fail to see it's correlation with desiring to be like someone else. Society has become lazy due to the overindulgence of entertainment, fast food, and the wonderful technological advancements that allow us to spend our leisure time. Most of the causes of youth becoming lazy are from technologies found in common households. IE: T.V., I pod, Computer. Since the laziness of our youth is coming from technologies found in the common house, It's the PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY, NOT SOCIETIES to ensure that their children studies despite these attractive indulgences. "AS I STATED BEFORE SOCIETY HAS INSTALLED LAZYNESS IN OUR YOUTH..AND NEVER INSTALL THE RIGHT VALUES SUCH AS HARD WORK." Then how do you explain the education system installed by our society? As I said before, If a parent lets a child watch T.V. all day instead of doing his/her homework, that source of laziness is the parent's fault, not societies.
the affect society have on our youth

SOMETIMES WHEN I LOOK AT TODAYS SOCIETY I JUST SAY, WHAT HAS HAPPEN TO OUR YOUTH...TO ME ON A PERSONALY LEVEL SOCIETY HAS PUT A TOLL ON OUR YOUTH FROM THE AGES OF 10 TO 21.AND IT SHOWS...SOCIETY HAS PUT IN OUR YOUNG PEOPLE MIND THAT, U CAN BE WHAT EVER YOU WANT..BUT THEY NEVER TELL HOW YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK FOR IT..I FELL LIKE OUR SOCIETY HAS GROWN LAZY.TO THE PRESSURE OF BEING LIKE OTHER PEOPLE..AND WHEN THEY REALIZE THAT BEING LIKE SOMEONE ELSE WILL NOT WORK IN LIFE.THATS WHEN THEY GROW LAZY. LET SAY YOU WANT TO BE LIKE BILL GATES.YOU WILL NEVER GET THERE BY SITTING ON YOU BUT, AND SAYING I WANT TO BE LIKE BILL GATES..AS I STATED BEFORE SOCIETY HAS INSTALLED LAZYNESS IN OUR YOUTH..AND NEVER INSTALL THE RIGHT VALUES SUCH AS HARD WORK.
Multiple Turtles V.S. Racoon

For my last argument, I would like to say that although turtles may be very defensive of one another, the chance that they will drown a raccoon is extremely unlikely. A raccoon will not chase a pack of turtles into the water no matter how hungry it is. And I believe Pro is mistaken when he talks about turtles in packs being a "family". Turtles, like alligators, lay their eggs and leave. When the babies hatch, they fend for themselves and never know their parents. That is why the eggs are buried.
Multiple Turtles V.S. Racoon

Wrong! Turtles in packs are usually very defensive of each other, and since the pack is usually a family of turtles, turtles are usually going to protect one another. Next, as a counterattack, I know from personal experience and research that raccoons usually don't know how to swim as fast as turtles, and turtles actually have very sharp teeth and claws. Not only that, but turtles have been known to purposely drown predators that attack. Plus, the turtles have amazing strength, and have shells!
Multiple Turtles V.S. Racoon

Even though turtles do travel in packs, does that mean that they will defend each other if one is attacked? If a raccoon jumped from a tree on top of a turtle wouldn't the more likely scenario be for the other turtles to attempt an escape, or curl up in there shells away from danger? And even if turtles are fast enough to keep up with a raccoon, they certainly can't climb trees, which a raccoon can do quite well. I'm afraid that, for the turtle, such a situation appears very bleak.
Multiple Turtles V.S. Racoon

I am saying that, sometimes,(rarely but possible) turtles move around in a pack. Also, it is known on many websites(if you search up on google for example) that when hungry, raccoons will go almost after anything, including turtles. As a counterattack, turtles are actually not that slow. In water, they an go swim up to amazing speeds of 20 (sometimes30) miles per hour (https://www.google.com...) . On land, they can go up to 5 miles per hour.
Multiple Turtles V.S. Racoon

My position is raccoons are superior to turtles, especially concerning survival instincts. To start, I will argue the remarks stated in Round One. I think the statement that turtles are strong enough to "defeat" raccoons is absurd. They are much too slow to accomplish that task. Besides, why would turtles try and fight with a raccoon? What possible motivation would they have? And when have turtles ever teamed up anyway?
The "Is Water Wet?" Debate is a race divider (racism) debate

Very well then, here are my rebuttals. "This is incorrect, let me define to you what racism is, first off (According to Marriam-Webster). Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race [1] Secondly, Even if I said that, it doesn't necessarily mean that I said that there were only black people in this debate. There are white people too, which you are excluding them from the debate ironically]" Yes, and wouldn't saying that all people are white or black, be saying that your race is superior? speaking of which we still don't have any connection to the "is water wet" debate topic and racism, also, you say that I am excluding white people ironically, which is untrue, because I refer to all the debaters as "they" or "certain skin color". "I never said this at all, you made this up just in attempt to get an easy win. I only said it has to do with racism and I demonstrated that in the first round. " let me quote you on what you said, you can find it in your statement in the 2nd round or your last round: "Saying that all people are white, or all people are black is racist" so basically, you said that it has everything to do with racism. "First off, you misrepresented what I said entirely, I didn't mean to literally read the comments, I meant don't take my demonstration out of context, which you did anyway. Taking things out of context does not help you in any way to refute any arguments I made. You took it out of context by making an overgeneralized assumption to take comments literally in a poor attempt to refute my arguments and my demonstration. " your going to have to say HOW I misrepresented your statement if you want to accuse me of that, otherwise its going to look like you just want an easy win. and this is not the first time you pulled this, in your conclusions TWICE you made the same statement, which counts as pandering. Conclusion: the "is water wet" debate is not a racial divide because no one from bryan's sources are taking it a race thing.
The "Is Water Wet?" Debate is a race divider (racism) debate

"There would be much toxicity, but not like hundreds of thousands of comments though. Just go with how I demonstrated the resolution in the second round, and you'll see a clear context on how this racism plays out throughout the comment section of many of these "is water wet?" videos." first off, I don't see any comments turning this into a race thing, but even if its true, if so few are taking it that way, how would the entire thing be considered a "racial divide". "Plus, I was not talking about race and racism like it had to do with the entire population of black and white people. I was only talking about blacks and whites that posted these debate videos. You are conflating the fact that I only mentioned blacks and whites that posted the video to either end this foolish debate or to continue it." let me give you a description on what "racism" means. Racism is something in which a person hates ALL people who have a certain skin color, you said that the debate is all about if someone implied that water is wet, then they meant that all people are white. If someone implied that water is not wet, then they meant that all people are black. this is where you contradict yourself, you say that it has nothing to do with racism, but in the first round you state it has everything to do with racism, thus making a contradiction. If the debate topic is a racial divide, than why do so many people of the same race have this debate?
The "Is Water Wet?" Debate is a race divider (racism) debate

Well you said this " it would be black vs white, but most people debating this are black, and they are debating it AGAINST EACH OTHER." That has proven you said that whites are the minority of this "is water wet?" debate. There would be much toxicity, but not like hundreds of thousands of comments though. Just go with how I demonstrated the resolution in the second round, and you'll see a clear context on how this racism plays out throughout the comment section of many of these "is water wet?" videos. Plus, I was not talking about race and racism like it had to do with the entire population of black and white people. I was only talking about blacks and whites that posted these debate videos. You are conflating the fact that I only mentioned blacks and whites that posted the video to either end this foolish debate or to continue it. There, I answered all your questions.
The "Is Water Wet?" Debate is a race divider (racism) debate

But, you are also forgetting that white people are part of this debate too. Videos: (1) https://m.youtube.com... (2) https://m.youtube.com... (3) https://m.youtube.com... I'm not excluding anybody by race, which proves my point. Which is "the fact that the majority of the people who say that water is not wet are black people, and not enough whites to voice themselves to make this "debate" fair enough for them."
The "Is Water Wet?" Debate is a race divider (racism) debate

Here may I present my case. This ongoing debate trend wasn't necessarily debating if "water is wet" or not because it seemed like a stupid question from the start. We all know that water is wet and all that other stuff, but that was not the main point of that debate. My position is that the "Is Water Wet?" debate was mainly based as a race divider debate because it wasn't meant to debate if water is wet or not. It was mainly to say that if someone implied that water is wet, then they meant that all people are white. If someone implied that water is not wet, then they meant that all people are black, which both sides of that "Is Water Wet?" debate are false. Saying that all people are white, or all people are black is racist, and that would offend anyone of color, especially African Americans. You can't just say that all men and women are white or black, because that is false. Not all men and women are white; And, not all men or women are black. Each side of this "debate" are demonstrating racial superiority over another race. Whites are showing superiority over Blacks, and Blacks are showing superiority over Whites. It is so divisive. It is a racism debate not just because how it works and how it has nothing to do with water being wet or not, but the fact that the majority of the people who say that water is not wet are black people, and not enough whites to voice themselves to make this "debate" fair enough for them. There, my case has been stated. I will now wait for Minddagger to make his opposing case.
Bring on the devil for all I care and try and prove that you are no more then an undecided atheist

This is the hole that you are in without the tools to find your own way out. As you could have at least answered dig some steps to get out. So you have the ability to be logical have you the ability to be lateral within your own frontal lobe that drives of your own personal allution within your cognitive mind set that seems to be crippled with juvanile bias. Pride try to develope some humility. For your own sake and all that you love about you'se sake. Peace be with you. For all praise and glorly belongs to the existance creator of intelligent design of all structure with the universe.