BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

Claim 1: Animal cruelty is illegal. Warrant: "FBI Makes Animal Cruelty A Top-Tier Felony To Help Track Abuse"[1] Warrant: "All 50 States Now Have Felony Animal Cruelty Provisions!" [2]. Claim 2: Nobody was arrested at the Inholfe fundraiser. Warrant: "Senator Inhofe's Live Pigeon Shoot Draws Criticism"[3]. Warrant: I know I am attempting to prove a negative, but if somebody was arrested surely it would have made the news. Impact: Claim 2 is relevant because no laws were broken at the Inholfe fundraiser, if no laws are broken and claim 1 is true then logically pigeon shoots do not qualify as animal cruelty. Impact: Jim Inholfe's fundraiser sets the precedence that pigeon shoots do not qualify as animal cruelty. The fact that this event is allowed without arrest and conviction proves that the felony animal cruelty did not take place. Impact: If pigeon shoots were animal cruelty people would be in jail. The fact that people aren't going to jail for pigeon shoots shows that pigeon shoots are not animal cruelty. Vote Con. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://aldf.org... http://www.newsmax.com...
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

The population in the united states in 2012 and currently is over 300 million compared to those 300 million less than 300 justifiable homicides occurs less than one in a million people. In the cases with animals https://historylist.wordpress.com... a centipede, spider, or scorpion death could not be prevented with a gun as if they were seen in time to prevent could easily be stepped on or sprayed with insecticide. that leaves 62.65 animal deaths that could be prevented with a gun a year combining that with the justifiable homicides making it so that 321.65 making it just above a one in a million chance that you will need a gun to protect yourself. These odds are so low that it would not be considered necessary for survival further more if shooting pigeons to practice shooting animals for self defense were to be considered self defense in it's own by that logic shooting humans to practice shooting violent attackers for self defense would also be considered self defense on it's own. It is clear to most that the latter is not true as the human you were shooting was not a threat to you and it was not so necessary for your survival to shoot the human that it would be considered self defense. Add in these facts Number of deaths: 2,596,993 Death rate: 821.5 deaths per 100,000 population Life expectancy: 78.8 years Infant Mortality rate: 5.96 deaths per 1,000 live births Number of deaths for leading causes of death: Heart disease: 611,105 Cancer: 584,881 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978 Alzheimer's disease: 84,767 Diabetes: 75,578 Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149 found here http://www.cdc.gov... and practicing using a gun to the best of your abilities is the last thing you need to do to protect yourself. Instead if worried about survival one should take care of their health, keep on top of their medical records with constant check ups, go to therapy or consistently confide in someone when you are down and have someone check up on you all before worrying about practicing shooting a gun effectively. These deaths also do not include the many causes that are much more common than animal or human attacks that should be attended to first as well.
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

"In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides 1 involving a private citizen using a firearm" [1] As you can see there were 259 cases in 2012 where a firearm was put to good use. Animals are a threat to humans too. "Beagle"s, Dauschund"s, Labradors, and even Golden retrievers have killed humans." [2] "Dogs 31 Spider 6.5 Rattlesnake 5.5 Mountain lion 1 Shark 1 Alligator 0.3 Bear 0.5 Scorpion 0.5 Centipede 0.5 Elephant 0.25 Wolf 0.1 Horse 20 Bull 3" [2] As you can perceive a firearm and firearm training could have helped with this. The best way to defend oneself against an animal is target practice against live animals, in this case pigeon shoots. Therefore, pigeon shoots are not animal cruelty because target practice against live animals helps ensure human survival. http://www.vpc.org... https://historylist.wordpress.com...
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

Your argument is that wielding a firearm is helpful in survival and an unpredictable target is required to get good at it. For practicing shooting you could purchase a remote controlled car or helicopter attach a target via flag attached to the helicopter or cardboard target on top of the car and have a friend drive it around while you shoot at the target thus making it an unpredictable moving target. In addition pigeon shooting is not done just by people learning to use a firearm it is also carried out by people who know how to use a firearm very well and do not require practice to use it effectively. Another thing to note is that guns are rarely used in self defense as reported here: http://www.vpc.org... There are also many people and households that do not have guns http://www.huffingtonpost.com... This shows that many people are surviving well without need for a gun much less very careful practice on animated targets.
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

I will argue that pigeon shooting counts as self-survival and thus is not animal cruelty. Anyone who has watched the news knows of violent crimes and of war. Wielding a firearm and being well practiced with a firearm can help a person survive in this modern era. Pigeon shooting provides valuable target practice . Unlike inanimate objects pigeons are more unpredictable. This is why target practice on pigeons, also known as pigeon shoots are key to human survival.
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

"Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." Harm is defined as "to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt:" killing a pigeon is causing harm, it damages the body of the bird. If the pigeon is not killed that would then be both suffering due to the pain of the injury and harm due to the damage of it. Pigeon shooting is cruelty to animals.
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

Pro will contend for the resolution. I Con will contend against the resolution. Here's a video of a pigeon shoot for those unfamiliar. [1] Animal cruelty definition "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival."[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

Claim 1 is incorrect. Not all animal cruelty is illegal. Factory farming is legal http://aldf.org... and is clearly very cruel to animals. http://www.farmsanctuary.org... It cannot be argued that this is for survival as there would be much more human survival had we all switched to a plant based diet instead of breeding farm animals that consume more crops than we would need we would have more food available and thus the food would sustain more people. http://www.animalliberationfront.com... This proves that animal cruelty still goes on without legal infractions making the argument that because no one was arrested for pigeon shooting means it is not animal cruelty invalid as no one is arrested for factory farming when it is animal cruelty. While claim 2 remains correct it's impact that if no laws were broken and animal cruelty is illegal pigeon shooting would be illegal is incorrect as not all animal cruelty is illegal. This leaves us no ability to rely on the law as to what is considered animal cruelty. I feel my statements and facts presented earlier on in this debate are enough to conclude that pigeon shooting is animal cruelty.
"no planes on 9/11" thoery

I can tell my opponent is an intelligent man, therefore by the end of this argument i hope he will be on my side, the side of liberty and truth. Lets remember that 9/11 was a heinous hoax, i think we can all agree that fire does not explode buildings period. The towers came down in 9 seconds! in a huge explosion, and we are really supposed to think that jet fuel did that? that has got to be the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard use your common sense. Our government has lied to us, and they even admit it. 6 OF THE 9 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY. People wake up. i wanted my opponent to already agree that 9/11 was an inside job. Apparently he doesn't, and although i would like to just switch the topic to why 9/11 was a setup, i'll continue with this, even though it makes me sound like a crazy person when i talk about no planes. 9/11 was not the only false flag attack, there are many others in the past, 9/11 is just the biggest by far. the fox news helicopter shot with the nose out actually happened, thousand of people have it recorded on their home vhs, even the supervisor saw it an attempted a rapid FADE-TO-Black right after the plane hit. You ask why would they broadcast this, wouldn't they have safeguards? their time was too short they only had 17 seconds from live to broadcast. And yes cnn did botch out the shot ill have the link on the bottom. lol what are the chances for cnn to botch out the most spectacular shot. all the existing plane crash videos are forged, a simple back to back comparison shows how they disqualify each other. In one video and almost perfect horizontal approach, in another a steep breath taking decent with g-force laden strike. And why is a Boeing 767 portrayed as black in full sunlight? and when you do a close up on it, i garentee you thats not a Boeing 767. Besides you think those amateur flyers could maneuver that big plane into that small target, when two experienced pilots tried to hit a target as big as the wtc and failed 6 times. ok for every action there is an equal reaction, so how is it possible that the plane disappears YES DISAPPEARED LOOK AT IT, into that steel building thats so stupid to think thats possible. as for the people on the plane, two of the flight records were never even found, the other two came months later, since the existence of the very planes is in compromise, that deserves a another investigation. Although i will say this three of the flights were supposedly headed to lax, were were the family members? not one showed up. oo i cant wait to talk about the eyewitnesses next argument . http://www.youtube.com... LEARN YOUR PHYSICS POPULAR MECHANICS LIES JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT CALL A CONSPIRACY THEORIST BUT DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH
"no planes on 9/11" thoery

Hello people my name is Tom. I am involved with a local portland truth group dedicated to exposing the truth about 9/11. I would prefer my opponent to already know at least some of the truth about what happened on 9/11. If you still believe people in a cave did this then please don't bother and go do some research for yourself. The reason why i am debating this is because it creates much controversy within the truth groups. I am here to explain how the world was duped into thinking that planes actually hit the towers. my first argument may be my strongest. The first shot we saw on live tv was a fox news helicopter shot. What we witnessed was a alleged plane strike the tower WITH THE NOSE EMERGING THROUGH THE OTHER SIDE COMPLETELY INTACT. look at the pictures http://www.911myths.com... I think we may all agree that an ALUMINUM plane will not go through a steel building and come out intact. If you can't agree with that go learn your physics. And believe that fox deleted this shot from there archives, then 6 minutes later cnn showed the same exact shot, with a convenient "unfortunate pop up banner" that blocked the shot, therefore you see no plane. If you look at the whole shot, the cameraman gets a lucky fast zoom in right as the plane emerges. If you back up the tape 5.5 seconds the camera is zoomed out quite far, and there is no plane inbound when he zooms back. Also did you happen to see how the plane went in the building, it went into that steel structure like butter. Sorry guys but aluminum does not cut steel. ill leave the argument hear although i have many more facts for later in the debate.
Increasing competition leads to rivalry

According to Cambridge dictionary,rivalry is a situation in which people, businesses, etc. compete with each other for the same thing, while competition is a situation in which someone is trying to win something or be more successful than someone else. So basically competition is the same thing as rivalry, they are just different words with the same meaning. It is wrong to say that increasing competition leads to rivalry, because they are the same thing. If you interpret competition as a more positive thing and rivalry as a more negative one, competition does not always lead to rivalry. There is always competition in a society, people compete for job opportunities, students compete for entering better schools or colleges, companies competing to earn more money. But competition does not mean that they are rivals. People still make friends with others because they understand that there is something called win-win.
Uncontroversial tautologies are sufficient responses to the question "What I believe"

Is this not America, the country of free speech? If I choose not to go into detail about my beliefs on my profile, don't I have that right? If I were so concerned about this confrontation over my beliefs, I would have edited my profile by now. But I didn't. So what does that tell you? What if I randomly challenged you about your profile picture? Who is that man? Why is he a staute? Why is that your profile picture? Are you a statue? Seems kind of ridiculous, doesn't it? Instead of challenging me to a debate, you could have just asked me why don't I have more information on my beliefs on a comment on one of my other debates. If you didn't say at the beginning that you were doing this for fun, I might have come up with a better argument. I feel that this debate isn't really serious, so I'm not putting up a very good fight here. Sorry Ragnar if I sound rude.
Uncontroversial tautologies are sufficient responses to the question "What I believe"

This is a debate site. Starting confrontations not only unavoidable, but it is desirable :P It is a false dilemma to choose between a "vague approach" and a "list of the majority of one's beliefs," as any reasonably consistent set of beliefs follows from a set of common premises, and so simply stating the premises is sufficient. The conclusions can be inferred. Unless of course you wish to reject consistency... ? Besides, tautologies are a rather odd sort of joke, they don't seem to have a punchline.
Uncontroversial tautologies are sufficient responses to the question "What I believe"

On your profile, person_16, you state ""I believe in anything I think is right." This is true of ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE, because "believe x" and "think x is right" are essentially equivalent statements. As such, this does not provide the information sought by the question. It would be more honest and appropriate to simply indicate you have no interest in providing an answer. XD thought this would be fun :D
Donald Trump shouldn't be president.

You can't really say Trump is a good candidate because you really don't know where he stands on anything. Donald Trump can say whatever he wants because he doesn't have to back it up. Smarter candidates like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who have experience, know that whatever you say now will have to be done later. Do you really believe Congress would approve a ban on all Muslims, or building all these walls Trump talks about? Not a chance. A ban on Muslims would also be challenged in court, and would be overturned with 100 percent certainty. Trump is actually the worst candidate because he understands the least about how governments work. A total lack of experience. He doesn't really want to be President, he just wants a platform for his ideas to be heard by everyone. Whoever votes for him is definitely stupid. He calls Mexicans "killers, criminals, drug dealers, and convicts" and then tries to justify that by saying "I have Mexican friends." Get it through your head Trump. You aren't qualified to be president and especially not in the USA, the place with the most immigrants. He's extremely racist, which is totally unacceptable. He wants to ban anyone that is not Christian and white from living in America. You can all call him misunderstood, but anyone who says Hitler is his favorite motivational speaker and wants to deport massive amounts of harmless, respectful, and legal immigrants has a serious problem. He should be deported, not the Mexicans. My parents are Mexican and I will be sad if I loose them. Donald trump get a life and think about what could happen if you do this. He's racist. And stuck-up. Well, anything on this list is true. Donald Trump fans must think again.
Jesus have his own gospel

1. Where the information of multiple gospel coming from?It is easy, it is from bible itself. Just read Gospel of mark, matthew, luke, and john you will read different statements and storis which is told in one gospel but can't be found in other gospel2. Are these just titles?Well, if this is just title why using the word "gospel"3. The only conclusion I can come to is these are Titles given to those sections and are in fact not in the scriptures written. well if it is not written in the scripture then why people say this is The Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Matthew, The Gospel of John, and The Gospel of Luke. Where this idea come from? why not saying that this is "Biography of jesus by mark", "Biography of jesus by matthew", "biography of jesus by luke", and "biography of jesus by john"?4. do they contain the same content or are they in fact different?They are different. Yes there same content but there is some different5. do you believe on Jesus?I want to believe jesus. But, what exactly did jesus said? People often talk that jesus saying this and that, but is it really what jesus saying?
Jesus have his own gospel

Mark 1:14 Now after John was imprisoned, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. 1:15 He said, "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God 33 is near. Repent and believe the gospel!"I agree with the above, however you moved awkwardly to a conclusion:"Which gospel that jesus mean? Gospel of Mark? Gospel of Matthew? Gospel of Luke? Gospel of John?""Of course none of those, because those gospel written after jesus died"Not only does the above verse state that it is "THE" Gospel you don't even use scripture to disprove what your original verse stated. I have looked for the words the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. The only conclusion I can come to is these are Titles given to those sections and are in fact not in the scriptures written. So let us move on to what might be the best defense you have, though it is very-weak. "because those gospel written after jesus died"Just because something is written after someone died does not inherently make something False or Different, you should clarify this claim. As follows:1: Clarify where the information concerning multiple Gospels is coming from? are these just Titles?(a) If you still agree that there are multiple Gospels, do they contain the same content or are they in fact different?I am going to be bold since there are just a few rounds, do you believe on Jesus? Has anyone ever told you the Good news of God and the Kingdom? When Christ stated:Mark 1:15He said, "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!"Have you or are you willing to repent? Do you believe such or are your contentions just with words?If your contention is with words are you willing:1 Corinthians 4:66 And these things, brethren, I did transfer to myself and to Apollos because of you, that in us ye may learn not to think above that which hath been written, that ye may not be puffed up one for one against the other,and stay within that which is written to disprove that which is written?
Obsecnity Laws are against the US Consitution

Response to R1: To keep the focus of the argument at hand, we must go back to the statment: "Obscenity Laws are against the US Constitution." Nowhere in that statement does it mention specifically freedom of speech. Obscenity comes in many forms, as the definition of obscenity relates to what is overwhelmingly offensive in the view common citizens of a given area. The bill of rights protects all forms of expression, which includes speech, written language, as well as artistic or expressive actions, as long as those expressions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Other ways of "expression" or actions that individuals do are also found to be obscene. For example, a 24-year-old Hallsville man was sentenced to six months in Smith County Jail for a misdemeanor charge of possession of obscenity after a trial that began with felony charges. In this case, the "obscenity" was child pornography, which goes far beyond calling someone a "F***" or writing cuss words in a newspaper. http://www.news-journal.com... Response to R2: The people decide what is "Obscene" and what is decent. Where a thong bikini was once considered "obscene" in American society, it now has a market, is acceptable to the public, and has a song. Though the nation is a republic, it is a DEMOCRATIC republic, which means that the views of the public shape the opinions that shape the forming of the laws of the nation. If the people do not find a behavior or speech to be obscene, it won't considered that way. And if the people did not find obscenities to be so offensive, there would be no laws against it. The people are in favor of laws that protect against obscenity, therefore the constitution supports them.
Obsecnity Laws are against the US Consitution

R1. No. That is not speech, or the press. That is attempted murder. "Free speech" is words and thoughts, not actions.R2. Words can't infringe upon liberties alone. That take action. If I call all gays "f*****s," that is freedom of speech. If I burn gays over a bonfire that is attempted or first degree murder. Common people don't decide the law. This is a republic, not a democracy.
Obsecnity Laws are against the US Consitution

This was a great topic for debate brainmaster. However, if Obscenity should be lawful simply because it represents someone's free speech, couldn't many other things that most people find unlawful? If I have a blade, and I choose to run through the streets, slashing left and right at people, am I simply expressing my "freedom of speech"? No, I am not, because the constitution stands to make laws that support civil rights as well as civil liberties. Civil liberities are rights that protect individual expressions, actions and beliefs; However, all individual civil liberties are unlawful once they begin to infringe upon the liberties of others. If someone is to do something publicly that goes beyond indeceny, and that is agreed upon to be obscene by his or her fellow citizens, he is therefore breaking the law, and is going against both the common people and the US Constitution.
Obsecnity Laws are against the US Consitution

Thanks for accepting jadelynn123. Well, my opponent has placed the laws in place. I will now attempt to show why they are illegal. This can be condensed into one argument. A1. Obscenity can also constitute freedom of speech. From amendment 1 to the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Since obscenity can also constitute freedom of speech, which is protected by the first amendment to the constitution, obscenity laws are unconstitutional. I await the next argument. Regards, Brainmaster