BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

I am going to take what my opponent said into mind as I compare two similar events. One where there was punishment, and one where the action was deemed legal and just. There have been situations in the news where children were caged in their homes. Their parents, who were responsible for their imprisonment were jailed. Another situation: let's say there's an elephant that lives in Africa, and has grown up there all of its life with its family. However, a zoo is opening, and they need animals. The elephant is taken from its home and put in the zoo, where it is caged in a small exhibit (at least compared to where it used to be able to live), with one or two others. The zoo is not shut down, nor is the action deemed illegal. That elephant had never relied on humans in the wild. Wouldn't this separation from the elephant's home cause mental and emotional damage, and the people responsible should be punished for such abuse? Keep in mind, abuse isn't just physical. Humans in the elephant's case used their power for the entertainment of other humans. This is vain for humans to do, but it's been a way of life to cage animals in a zoo, or the circus. However, when other humans are imprisoned or abused in similar ways, this causes an uproar. This is because as humans, we can distinguish that humans are more important than inferior species. *In no way do I agree with the abuse of animals through caging in zoos or circus. This has merely been a tradition that proves the dominance of the human species over others.
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

I believe that as the master beings we have a responsibility to take care of our fellow animals. One of the ways we can do that is by pushing higher penalties on animal abusers. In an ecosystem all of the animals work together to survive and thrive, humans rely on animals for all sorts of things; food, clothing, transportation. In that relationship they also rely on us for food, shelter, and protection. People who misuse this privilege need harsher punishments.
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

The issue of animal abuse is one that challenges a person's morals when comparing the life of a human against another animal. Like veganism, those who want animals (excluding humans) to be treated as equal to humans are often unable to choose whether to spare an animal's (once again, excluding humans) life, or that of their own species. That, or they choose the former. My argument, though I may not agree through my morals, but definitely through my logic is that the mistreatment of animals should not be a punishable crime unless the animal is a human, because as of now (and in my opinion), humans are the dominant species of this generation and other animals that we may abuse are merely our prey, and do not need the treatment humans do when in these situations. Therefore, those who abuse animals should not be charged with the same punishments as child abusers. I look forward to more detail on your perspective :)
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

I believe that people who abuse animals should be punished just as severely as people who abuse children. Animals and children are both fairly defenseless against an full grown human. If a man/woman tied up a medium to large dog and kicked it, there would be similar injuries if they tied up an 6 or 7 year old child. A child is weak and can't fight against an adult, animals aren't as weak but if they get tied/chained up they don't have any way to escape. Animals can't go to the police and claim abuse, children sometimes can, but most of the time they're too frightened of what the repercussions could be. Therefore there should be similar punishments.
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

Science doesn't exactly show how one feels. I have severe depression and I've had full body scans done. It shows what part of the brain is affected by the emotion but it doesn't show how you feel. My opponent's hypotheses that animals don't suffer the mental and emotional stress that humans do, is incorrect. Animals that have been abused suffer from PTSD, they show aversion to certain types of people, the ones who look, sound, or smell like their abusers. My aunt has a dog that was abused and neglected by his previous owner, a man, and whenever unknown men come into their home he panics. Animals deserve respect, they feed us, they clothe us, they show us love and devotion, why should we give them any less? Why should people who treat them like garbage get off with a small fine, or not be allowed to own animals on the property they abused them on? Thank you for debating me.
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

As I aforementioned, humans continue to evolve and adapt to the environment. We are starting to learn about our dangerous ways of the past, and have prevented extinction and endangerment of several animals such as the panda. We learn from our mistakes so that in the future we can do things better. Those who abuse animals should not be punished as harsh as a punishment for child abuse, because a human's life as the dominant species is more important. Sure, monkeys and crows can accomplish simple tasks, but humans can and have done so much more since we have been on Earth. When being abused, animals do not suffer the mental or emotional stress that humans do when they are being abused, at least as science can say so far. Therefore, animals do not need the same amounts of protection that humans do. It's shocking that my opponent believes that without humans, animals will thrive. Without humans, there will be no one to fix the damage we have done to our planet, and no one to continue the thriving and growth of our own species. Thanks for debating with me.
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

There are animals that are clever and have cognitive thought. Monkeys and crows have been observed to use tools to accomplice a certain task. Tests have been done with dogs where they would refuse a treat from a person that wouldn't help their owner. Humans only get attacked by sharks when they go into the ocean, the ocean is the sharks habitat. Typically sharks don't attack from aggression, they think humans are food, sharks are painted as evil in movies and books but that's incorrect. Most animals don't attack humans unprovoked, humans do attack animals all the time though. There's whole species that have gone extinct or are close to it because humans destroy everything in their path. Whole forests are ripped down so that people can have better looking homes and cities. We reproduce faster than the world regenerates, humanity is destroying the world. Animals stop breeding when the population grows too large humans do not. This shows how humans may be able to use tools better and be smarter in some ways, but in all actuality, if humankind goes extinct every other species of animal will thrive.
Should animal abusers have punishments as harsh as child abusers (adult abusers, 18 and up)

This lack of punishment for animals' behalf is because humans have acknowledged our dominance over other animals. Since we have evolved, we have discovered our superior intelligence. We can communicate efficiently, invent and innovate creations, and learn to use our resources for survival, and entertainment as well. If animals were to get the justice they deserve, they should be able to speak up for themselves, just as humans would. It may be our responsibility to provide a balance in the food chain, but we should not have to give them a place in the justice system. Animals are more expendable because they do not provide the same level of intelligence or evolution as humans do. Not to mention, they are often a danger to our species such as things like shark attacks. That is killing innocent humans that are peacefully swimming in a body of water. Shouldn't the sharks that were responsible face punishment as well? It's the same situation, just reversed. However, the difference is that the sharks cannot face justice for their actions because they are not intelligent enough to know better.
Liberals of sound reason realize welfare and social programs are unjust, but promote them anyway.

So you do agree that the idea of welfare is good. Giving to the poor, helping the ones in need, ect. You just disagree with the fact that your tax money is being spent for others in need without your consent? well you do know that all the social welfare programs combined add up to about 1-2% of the federal budget over all. I think it is unjust to live in a system where people are put in situations where they need federal assitance and people complain about them. It is unjust in my eyes, to not help them, the ones in need.
Liberals of sound reason realize welfare and social programs are unjust, but promote them anyway.

"Welfare and social programs are unjust how?" Most welfare and social programs of any sort are unjust. Some are just more acceptable than others. I oppose all welfare for the same reason you oppose corporate welfare-- someone is taking the rightful property of one individual against his will and handing it over to one who did not earn it. That is a clear-cut injustice so elementary it needs no additional comment. It takes rationalize (i.e. pointing to how many people are helped by forced charity) to justify it. In other words, the ends justify the injustice. Now, before you get started mentioning all the injustices conservatives are guilty of, let me remind you that one unjust act does not justify another. You would be putting forth a common fallacy by doing so. I know we've wasted a fortune on unjust and unnecessary wars along with corporate welfare, and an honest conservative of sound reason would admit that. By the same token, an honest religious conservative of sound reason would admit he has no business telling prostitutes they can't sell their bodies, but sees the injustice in doing so as necessary to prevent the moral decay of society. I like it when a conservative is intelligent enough to know he really has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies, but admits he is grateful for the majority-rule system that allows him to do so. I think it's more honorable than to try and defend the transgression as just. I am not debating whether welfare and social programs do some good for the recipients. When something is pilfered there is always someone on the receiving end who benefits, just as Lockheed, GM and Disneyland did. I am only arguing that such forced charity is patently unjust to those who must involuntarily pay for it. I admire it when one is intelligent enough to see the injustice and honest enough to admit he is willing to support the injustice in spite of that to secure a desirable outcome. This type of person is not ignorant of what he is advocating. "If you're suggesting that liberals are bad for supporting a system designed to help those in need like starving children, than...I guess I'm a bad guy." No, not at all. I think their hearts are in the right place, as evidenced by the fact that many think they are committing no injustice at all. Their desire to do good is so great that it clouds their ability to objectively reason. I just admire people who can admit it is unjust in principle to force a free man to give his property to another, regardless of how popular the practice is, how badly the property is needed, or what benefit comes of it. I could not categorize a person (liberal or otherwise) who is unable to recognize obvious injustices as a person "of sound reason." So, again, liberals of sound reason are aware that welfare and social programs are unjust, but are willing to support them anyway. And honest liberals of sound reason are happy to admit it.
Liberals of sound reason realize welfare and social programs are unjust, but promote them anyway.

Welfare and social programs are unjust how? Morally? Helping the poor? This is wrong? Look I'm all for getting rid of certin welfare programs. Corprate welfare for example. The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)is a welfare program it accounts for a small amount of the national budget. AFDC is less than 1% of the federal budget and, on average, no more than 2% of each state's fund. Corprate welfare on the other hand cost the tax payers much more money in the long run. Some examples of Big Welfare Mommas: -During fiscal year 1995, the Pentagon agreed to pay Lockheed Martin $850 million in "consolidation costs." the Pentagon also paid $100 million in bonuses to top executives of Lockheed and Martin Marietta for successfully completing the merger of the two giant military contractors. -Taxpayers forked over $300,000 in 1995 to help Disney Co. put on a bigger and brighter nightly fireworks show. Through a Department of Energy program called "Cooperative Research and Development Agreements," the research took place at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Disney gets the commercial benefit of this publicly funded research, and if applicable, shares developments with the armed forces. - From 1990 - 1994, General Motors' (GM) wealthfare stipend was more than $110.6 million in federal technology subsidies as part of a program that was supposed to create jobs. GM benefitted from this program; in 1994 they netted $4.7 billion in profits. Yet during those four years, GM slashed 104,000 jobs--25% of their U.S. workers were laid off. ******************* Now as far as social programs go, if they aren't as expensive to fianace as you seem to suggest, than please elaborate why you think it is wrong and fundementally flawed? Are you upset that most welfare recipents are children? Children are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991). If your suggesting that liberals are bad for supporting a system designed to help those in need like starving childeren, than...I guess I'm a bad guy.
Liberals of sound reason realize welfare and social programs are unjust, but promote them anyway.

Many liberals are not as illogical as they make themselves out to be. I submit the portion of liberals who are of sound reason know they are promoting unjust policies aimed at taxing citizens beyond the minimum needed to provide for their general safety and the defense of their basic rights and liberties. I assert that liberals of higher intelligence see liberal socialistic policies for what they are-- legislated morality which forces the rightful owners of certain property to give it away to those who have not earned it. These "liberals of a higher order" consider social programs (and the high taxes required to pay for them) as necessary evils required to stave off poverty (and all the mayhem that would ensue) in those who are unable or unwilling to work. Reasonable and honest liberal will admit this.
Liberals of sound reason realize welfare and social programs are unjust, but promote them anyway.

In my opinion, the welfare system is just, for the very reason that it is here to help those in need. What is unjust is thinking about yourself, and your money while single mothers are struggling to put food on the table for their childeren. Please understand, I know why Americans get upset about the government taking tax money out of your paychecks. But people don't seem to get upset about it when they need the services. Calling the police, going to a public school, calling the fire dept., ect. These are al things that we see, and affect us directly. I think people would understand a different point of veiw if they had to see the tears of the poor waiting in line for their check...
The Pokemon franchise is better than the Super Mario franchise

In this debate, I will be arguing that the Pokemon franchise is better than the Super Mario franchise. By franchise, I mean everything, not just the mainstream games- sidegames, official merchandise, characters, story, graphics,cartoons/anime/tv shows, etc. No forfeits, and you must have at least general knowledge of at least the Super Mario franchise, and know what both franchises are. First round is for acceptance. Good luck.
Flying Spaghetti Monster v. Abrahamic God

The amount of proof for the Flying Spaghetti Monster is absolutely insurmountable. Not only is there mathematical proof of His existence, but there is also visual proof of Him everywhere. You may wonder why you cannot see His Noodliness, but that is because He is intangible, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, invincible, all-powerful, inaudible, unprecedented, all-seeing, and only He knows the answer to life the universe and everything.Visual EvidenceWe have indesputable video evidence of Him creating our universe. ()This is Earth's magnetic field (http://www.venganza.org...)This is a cave painting dating back to as fa as 23,000 BCE, 19,000 years before the bible claims that the earth has existed. http://www.venganza.org...Mathematical Evidencehttp://www.scq.ubc.ca...FSM is known as the god of pirates. (http://www.venganza.org...)Here is direct evidence of FSM's pirate powers. (https://c1.staticflickr.com...)Scientific Evidencehttp://imgur.com...This picture shows the relation between pasta and DNA. Still not convinced? DNA is made of amino acids. Amino Acids also create proteins. Meatballs are made of proteins. Checkmate Atheists. This is the Higgs Boson, otherwise known as the god particle (http://www.venganza.org...)If the FSM is not real, then why are the planets shaped like meatballs? (http://th05.deviantart.net...)Pokemon EvidenceIf FSM is not real, than how can we know his stats? (http://www.mypokecard.com...)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The gospel of His Noodliness can be found here. (http://www.venganza.org...)
.999... is equal to 1

Well my opponent has forfitted the last round, essentially sealing my victory as if it weren't abundantly clear already. I'm not quite sure why I accepted this debate, because it isn't really up for debate. To debate whether 0.999... = 1 is comparable to debating whether 2+2 = 4. My opponent had tried to change the definition of '2' so to speak in order to twist his way into winning. But there are serveral flaws to this. -His 'number system' idea doesn't work, as varying representations of 0.999... in those systems equal the representation of one in the base 10 system. -He did not allude at all that we were to debate with varying number systems, to assume this is ludicrous. Base 10 is the universal system. Thus, I will finish by posting my still unconstested proof for the fact that 0.999... = 1 x = 0.999... 10x = 9.999... 10x - x = 9.999... - x 9x = 9 x = 1 Also 1/3 = 0.333... 3*[1/3] = 3*[0.333...] 1 = 0.999... This will be my last 'debate on this topic' Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
.999... is equal to 1

Interesting strategy by my opponent in essentially changing the entire debate just by his choosing. But whatever, hopefully the voting audience notices that my opponent has: A) Seemingly conceded that BOTH my mathematical proofs hold, as there has been no challenge to their legitimacy B) Has accepted my rebuttal to his claim that 0.999... is a recurring decimal with an end (wat). But whatever, totally change the debate if you want. The thing with the 8 number system is pretty easy to respond to, like you said the phenomenon occurs with 0.777... instead of with 0.999... This just shows that in that numbering system, there is no excluding factor that says that recurring decimals cannot equal one. It really makes no difference on the matter that 1 = 0.999... (A point that you're seemingly and confusingly conceding). As someone in the comments section points out, this debate isn't entitled "For all numbering systems, especially eight there is only one value for one, although it can change sometimes" This just isn't what we are debating. The resolution is the RECURRING DECIMAL 0.999... is equal to ONE. As it happens, 0.999... can be represented in many forms in different numbering systems, but it still holds that 0.777..., 0.111... or whatever you want to call it, is equal to one. If 0.777... is the same thing as 0.999... in the octal numbering system and that still equals one (which it does) then this is nothing but a point FOR my contention that 0.999... = 1. There isn't a huge difference in the different number systems in regards to the various truisms. 0.999... equalling one is the same. To take the octal numbering system as an example, 0.777... is equivalent to 0.999... of the widely used system, it is also equal to one. It doesn't matter what system you use, it still holds. All this, of course is totally mute because the resolution makes no mention of different numbering systems or anything of the sort. It simply reads that 0.999... is equal to one. Given that 0.999... can be represented in different number systems and those can also be proven to equal one, then I really don't see how my opponent has a point. Once again I remind the voting audience to note that my opponent has ignored my rebuttals. Thank you, and sorry if this seems rushed, it is.