BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Horse Slaughter

OK, I read two things here. 1) You support killing healthy horses for meat to be shipped overseas where horse meat is considered a delicacy, and you support this activity being conducted in the U.S. despite the fact that the meat can not be sold in this country. 2) You also oppose closing the plants because of a perceived over population of horses and how that affects the dollar value of your own horse(s) Well, you certainly caught me off guard with those views while claiming to be a horse lover. If slaughtering horses for export meat as a means of population control is acceptable, I can only assume you would support similar operations for dogs and cats as well. There are MUCH worse overpopulation problems with those two animals than there is for horses. The fact that the end product that comes from horse slaughterhouses is not legal for sale in the United States, the production of the product likewise should not be legal. Your argument that it's more humane to slaughter them here because of Government enforced standards and procedures is flawed as well. Using that reasoning, we should set up heroin processing plants to develop a product for export even though the product is illegal here. Why? Because with Government oversight, at least the people using the product would be getting what they paid for and not something cut with rat poison or other impurities. Finally you negate your own argument of the humanity of shipping these animals to Mexico or Canada for slaughter as soon as you use population control as a reason for legalized slaughterhouses here. Obviously if ALL of the animals that were previously being processed in the U.S. were now instead shipped to other countries, the net population control would be the same. While I don't doubt that *some* horses are shipped to other countries for processing, there is no evidence that the number is anywhere close to the more than 100,000/yr that were being slaughtered here. Ancillary crimes and shady businesses also were shut down along with the processing plants. Horse theft was a huge problem around and near these plants. With no where to quickly unload their stolen property the incidents of theft have greatly decreased. Additionally, unscrupulous breeders who were producing inferior animals as quickly as possible just to make a buck by selling to the plants no longer have an incentive to take shortcuts in their breeding practices. In short, whatever merit these processing plants may have had (none in my view) was negated by the surrounding practices, illegal ventures, and shady dealings that surrounded these operations which were producing a product illegal to sell in this country.
Horse Slaughter

Yes I know thats where they go, it isn't to put them out of their misery. Oh, I was wrong about a spike in the head here in U.S. maybe another one does it but this footage they hit them on the head a few times till they were unconscious, or maybe it had a spike in it, they called it a bolt gun, it looked like a air nailer. I still am pro slaughter, I stick to what I say. I've seen horses headed there (right at my hometown auctions) when those plants were open and its sad to see them go, they were healthy. But I'm talking the conditions that they're going through NOW not before. It's worse than before because they shut the American plants down. Those healthy horses are now going to Mexico to be slaughtered by being stabbed in the spine, head, and heart, like I said before, the problem is they're healthy when bought but when they arrive are half dead because of starvation from the extra long haul. I also just watched a video on how they drag the dying horses into the plant by their legs with cables attached, it had footage, awful. I still believe that if the slaughter houses here were open the horses would at least die without having to be drug into a plant, U.S. plants are a little more humane, more so than Mexico. Sorry to say, but it would also cut back on our over population of horses and maybe a horse would be worth something. bigreyhorse
Horse Slaughter

OK, now that I have a little firmer grasp on what you are arguing, let me clear something up here. The horse slaughter plants in Texas and Illinois weren't there to humanely destroy old, ill, or injured horses (acceptable practices). These plants were operated to provide horse meat to foreign countries and worked very much like a cattle slaughterhouse. These horses were typically bought at auctions and tens of thousands of young, healthy animals were being slaughtered to provide meat to Europe and Japan. This is a far cry different from humane euthanasia of terminally ill or injured animals. Know that you know the purpose of those three, foreign owned, plants that were shut down, do you still oppose shutting them down?
Horse Slaughter

Sorry this is my first time trying this thing out. I'm talking domestic and wild I suppose, they're both being shipped to Mexico now because the plants in Texas and Illinois are shut down. A slaughter plant being shut down may sound good but when you put it the pieces together, its not. When theres nowhere to go after those plants are down they go to mexico and the mexico plant stabs them in their spine, head or anywhere they like, till death, and sometimes they're not even dead when they hang them from their hind legs to drain the blood from their bodies. I don't know how inhumane the plant in canada is,I would hope not as bad, but they do travel a lot further for no good reason and starve, some to death in cramped trailers. bigreyhorse (to commenter) I am pro slaughter thats why ^ its not because I hate horses, I'm a horse owner too.
Horse Slaughter

This is indeed a confusing opinion. Which "horses" are you referring to? Are you referring to wild horses or domestically owned horses or both? At first I thought you meant just wild horses but then you made this comment: "Now, they're either starving to death in dirt lots because no one can feed them", this implies horses people own. And if you could also clarify "slaughter". Am I to take it you mean you are in favor of the wholesale slaughter of horses because you fear what "might" happen to them otherwise? Finally, if you could kindly explain why shipping horses to "Canada or Mexico" is somehow less humane than slaughtering them I'd greatly appreciate it. As a horse owner and animal dealer I find the idea of slaughter as a first means of controlling the perceived problems I'm sure you will define to be abhorent. This should be an absolute last option.
French is just as useful as Spanish in America.

"Okay, and? Are you, now, saying that I SHOULD learn Spanish just because France is not in America? What? But still, If I were to learn Spanish, which is now to late because I'm in my 3rd year of French, it would serve me no use. Why would learning Spanish do any good for me? The Spanish in America (USA) NOT SOUTH AMERICA probably know English too. If you come to a country, more than likely, that person will want to learn the original language of that country. '" I'm saying that this topic relates to America, not France, so it doesn't matter whether you want to visit France. Also it is true to gain citizenship you have to speak understandable English, but most immigrants prefer their original language. "It is like, this man is French, but every one learns German, Spanish, And Italian, but not Swahili. This man wants to learn Swahili. And he plans to never go to Germany, Italy and Spain (I couldn't resist not visiting Italy) but he wants to be a business person there. Do you think if he listened to his peers and learned the three Romantic languages, that would do much go for him?" How does this point relate to the topic? We are talking about all of America in general NOT JUST MAINE.
French is just as useful as Spanish in America.

"True, if you want to live in France, but France isn't America is it? Also the topic is about the U.S.A in general, not just Maine, if you ran into a man here, they are more likely to speak Spanish than French." Okay, and? Are you, now, saying that I SHOULD learn Spanish just because France is not in America? What? But still, If I were to learn Spanish, which is now to late because I'm in my 3rd year of French, it would serve me no use. Why would learning Spanish do any good for me? The Spanish in America (USA) NOT SOUTH AMERICA probably know English too. If you come to a country, more than likely, that person will want to learn the original language of that country. ' There are plenty of other Spanish people to help the new visitors or immigrants who are Spanish. They can manage. It is like, this man is French, but every one learns German, Spanish, And Italian, but not Swahili. This man wants to learn Swahili. And he plans to never go to Germany, Italy and Spain (I couldn't resist not visiting Italy) but he wants to be a business person there. Do you think if he listened to his peers and learned the three Romantic languages, that would do much go for him?
French is just as useful as Spanish in America.

"BUT still, Spanish is useless to me. TO me. I don't care if our country has mostly Spanish speakers, but If I have plans on living in France, Spanish isn't exactly useful, is it now? BUT for you, it would be!" True, if you want to live in France, but France isn't America is it? Also the topic is about the U.S.A in general, not just Maine, if you ran into a man here, they are more likely to speak Spanish than French. "I'm sorry if I was a bit, let's say, "rude". I do apologize. That was not an acceptable way to debate." Its cool. Sorry for being a bit rude also.
French is just as useful as Spanish in America.

"You missed the big point of my debate. I never said French was MORE useful than Spanish in USA. I said, French is JUST as useful, meaning, learning French is useful and Learning Spanish is useful." I'm saying Spanish is more useful to know in America to show that it is not as useful to know French as it is to Spanish, you have to prove that it French is as useful. "Bud, any language you learn is Useful. Please don't say Spanish is more useful, if I will never go to Spain." That's great,but it doesn't relate to the topic and I will never go to France. "And guess what, I live in Maine, (A state in north, eastern US) and Maine touches Quebec. There are 2% or the pop speaking Spanish while there is 57% speaking French. YES, I should really learn Spanish, shouldn't I??" And guess what, I live in California (a state in the south, western US) which touches Mexico. There're 38.3 million Spanish speakers in the country vs the 2.07 million French speakers (the information from above was from a survey, this is from the census). 9,696,638 people in California speak Spanish vs about the 757,132 from Maine.
French is just as useful as Spanish in America.

You missed the big point of my debate. I never said French was MORE useful than Spanish in USA. I said, French is JUST as useful, meaning, learning French is useful and Learning Spanish is useful. Look at it this way. I learn Spanish just because of the 30 million Spanish speakers. But I never want to travel to Mexico or Spain. What good will it do me, if I learn Spanish? Bud, any language you learn is Useful. Please don't say Spanish is more useful, if I will never go to Spain. And guess what, I live in Maine, (A state in north, eastern US) and Maine touches Quebec. There are 2% or the pop speaking Spanish while there is 57% speaking French. YES, I should really learn Spanish, shouldn't I?? NO!! Your argument falls flat to the ground
French is just as useful as Spanish in America.

French is not a useful as Spanish in America. Useful: having value: having value or benefit, or bringing an advantage Knowing Spanish is more useful in America than knowing French. There are 35 million Spanish speakers while there are 659,000 French speakers. Also Spanish is listed as the most popular language besides English in America. How is knowing French more useful than Spanish if there are more Spanish speakers in America than French? Sources: http://www.alsintl.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
French is just as useful as Spanish in America.

It all started when my friend said, "Spanish is most useful because we have many Spanish speaking people in our country" I'm like "heck no" I thought this. "Why should I learn a language that I think sounds UGLY and learn it just because we have a lot of Spanish speakers. Who cares!! I want to learn French! It sure sounds nicer than Spanish anyway, But that's my personal opinion. And I really do not like the Spanish culture. Not my THING. And later, a student at school said, "Most people can pronounce the words!" Thinking, I could care less about how to speak that language. I'd rather learn French. For me, French is more useful because I will be travailing to France and Quebec more often and I plan to NEVER even step foot in Spain nor Mexico. I'd rather visit Argentina. AND my history teacher said, "learn Arabic and Chinese!" "There are billions of people in China!!" NO. I WILL NEVER LEARN CHINESE. I thank anyone who accepts this debate. Cheers.
WWIII: a series of debates

Well I acknowledge the fact that the China-US trade is invaluable to the Chinese today I wonder if it will be so important whenever this war takes place. China is buying up many resources around the world in order to attain some semblance of economic independence from the US. [. http://www.independent.co.uk...] Also the Taiwan-Chinese rift runs much deeper than many people realize. China would love to have Taiwan back at all costs and says that one day it will invade Taiwan and take it by force if necessary detailed here in a page about Taiwan-Chinese relations. [. http://www.cfr.org...] WWIII would be a perfect opportunity for China to grab Taiwan. As for the Korean conflict perhaps they wouldn't intervene, but Taiwan yes they would. So S. K wins over N. K Iran loses to US/Israel forces. Russia is broken. China takes Taiwan. Pakistan falls with Iran. And the world sues for peace. The Middle East is now a mostly free US backed region and China is the dominant power in Asia.
WWIII: a series of debates

I believe at this point Iran is out. Russia is mobilizing its army though Kazakhstan, and the Straights of Hormuz are open. The U.S. would stay back and help Iran build a new government like they always do. I have to argue China jumping in. They depend heavily on the U.S. because they export millions of dollars in goods to us. I have a source that outlines all of the details. I will wait till next round to continue the S.K./N.K. battle. With Iran out, Israel and the Allies turn towards Russia. At this point, Russia is "caught with their pants down." They are in the middle of moving thousands of tanks, APC's, and artillery, plus the millions of solders and personal to Iran and Iraq. The Allies will begin air raids and send in special forces to destroy, sabotage, and demoralize the Russian army. I have enclosed two sources; 1 is of China and the U.S. imports and exports, and 2 U.S. v.s. Russia. https://www.uschina.org... http://www.mint.com... This is really becoming an enjoyable debate. I thank Con for it, and I wait his response.
WWIII: a series of debates

Yes I know we have anti-Russian defenses in place but not in certain areas. Russia will traverse the what I like to call former Soviet "Stan" countries in order to get to Iran quickly while bypassing the Western defenses. You say we would counter attack with our air force, which is true, but I believe that due to the proximity of Iran to Russia, they would be able to do some damage before we could do anything. While I agree that Australia would have an interest in the war in Asia I am skeptical in the Canadian's involvement. While they would back up the U.S I don't know if that extends to being deployed on a foreign front. Also you say "with the Korean front gone"... but I want to respectfully remind you that you have forgotten my last country. China. China is not going to sit back and let S.K wreck N.K so they'll intervene, first with their Navy then with their Airforce before invading Korea on the side of the North. The Chinese involvement will turn the tide of battle and push the South all the way back to the border. Just like in the Korean conflict. Also Chinese aggression will most likely pull Taiwan into the war on the US side due to their past suspicion and dislike. But I agree that eventually the US would combat Russian intervention and shut off Iranian trade while retaking the Straights of Hormuz. Israel will be absolutely crushing Iran at this point... until nuclear intervention... if there is any. You're turn friend.
WWIII: a series of debates

Thanks for pointing out MY oversight. I agree with you that N.K. would be the first to attack, not S.K. It is at this point I bring in Canada and Australia. This countries have always backed the U.S. so I feel like they would join in too. You have said, " I believe that the Russian's first goal would be to support Iran and protect their trade which would not be very difficult to do with Russian airpower and missile technology.". When the Cold War was going on, we designed defences, and still do, agaisnt Russian missles. And if the Russian airforce attacks, The U.S., U.K., and Mexican airforces will counterattack. "The Constitution of Canada gives the federal government exclusive responsibility for national defence, and expenditures are thus outlined in the federal budget. For the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the amount allocated for defence spending was CAD$18.9 billion. This regular funding was augmented in 2005 with an additional CAD$12.5 billion over five years, as well as a commitment to increasing regular force troop levels by 5,000 persons, and the primary reserve by 3,000 over the same period. In 2006, a further CAD$5.3 billion over five years was provided to allow for 13,000 more regular force members, and 10,000 more primary reserve personnel, as well as CAD$17.1 billion for the purchase of new trucks for the Canadian Army, transport aircraft and helicopters for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and joint support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy." This is info on Canada's military spending. Canada would be sent to help S.K. beat back and defeat N.K. with the help of Australia. With repeated bombing runs, and after being pushed back alll the way to their border, N.K. finally admits defeat and a treaty is signed. N.K. and S.K. are now one country, Korea, and are out of the war to rebuid and strenthen. With the Korean front gone, Canada and Australia focus on helping Israel on their front. I hope you enjoyed reading this and I can't wait to hear your reply.
WWIII: a series of debates

Good insight. In wake of the 2008 invasion of Georgia I will agree that Russia will use any excuse to strengthen it's military and flex its muscles. You are also probably right in your assertion that Russia's mobilization would be slow and unorganized since history has taught us that Russians are notoriously bad at mobilizing military efforts. Thanks for pointing out my oversight. Now: The US and Mexican Navies will be fighting in order to reopen the Straights of Hormuz to the world again. The task forces would be fighting to stop Iranian trade but I believe that the Russian's first goal would be to support Iran and protect their trade which would not be very difficult to do with Russian airpower and missile technology. But here is an area I disagree with wholeheartedly. I picked North Korea as one of my countries because N.K is an aggressor and an agrivator. South Korea would never attack N.K. They feel a kinship with the North and have continuously supported their northern bretheren with aide and goodwill. The South would never be the first to attack. Therefore I must change it so seeing the West occupied with Israel N.K believes that they can lead a strike against the South and do it with very little opposition from the United States. N.K then attack S.K under the direction of their dictator leadership using shells and airstrikes but the US garrison in S.K rallies the South for a defense and possible counter-attack but they are reluctant as they usually are when dealing with N.K. Facing starvation and extinction at the hands of malnutrition and exposure the North would then instigate the war much as a cornered animal attacks anyone that approaches. Iran is being ravaged by Israeli air strikes as their army begins to deploy through US encouraged Iraq.
WWIII: a series of debates

I'll discuss it, make a change or two, then move to the next part of it. I really like how you got it started, so I'm not going to change it. But, I will change Russia's part in it. "On 16 February 2009 Russia's deputy defence minister said state defence contracts would not be subject to cuts this year despite the ongoing financial crisis, and that there would be no decrease in 2009. The budget would still be 1,376 billion roubles and in the current exchange rates this would amount to $41.5 billion. However, later that month, due to the world financial crisis, the Russian Parliament's Defence Committee stated that the Russian defence budget would instead be slashed by 15 percent, from $40 billion to $34 billion, with further cuts to come. On 5 May 2009, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said that the defence budget for 2009 will be 1.3 trillion rubles (US$39.4 billion). 322 billion rubles are allocated to purchase weapons, and the rest of the fund will be spent on construction, fuel storage and food supply." This states that, because Russia is in a budget crisis, it's had to cut its defensive spending. Now, if they go to war, that spending goes soaring up. They also wouldn't be able to mobilize their huge army anytime soon. And by the time they join the fight, they would be in serious money trouble. That said, its my turn. As Israel and Iran go at each others throats, The U.S., and Mexican Navies begins to bring the pain against the Iranian Navy. Also, a joint task force of British S.A.S., Navy SEALs, and Mexican Marines launch attacks on the ports of Iran to stop them from being able to receive trade. While all this is happening, South Korea starts sneaking in troops to the DMZ for a surprise attack. North Korea has began to arm and get ready to mobilize when S.K. attacks. The attack devastates N.K.'s arms stockpile and their morale. So at this point, we have Iran and Israel fighting, U.S., Mexico navies fighting Iranian navy, And the Task Force destroying their trade. Also we have N.K. and S.K. beginning their war. Hope you enjoyed it BTW I'm going to call my task force Task Force 141.