BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
animal rights

Let's duel!!! I think my opponent for opening this debate. Although I was expecting that he would be pro in this debate, I would like to try the devil's advocate for once. :D *DRAWING PHASE* #1. We each draw 5 cards, with my opponent drawing the sixth card as he goes first. #2. My opponent played no cards whatsoever, but *analyzed* the situation without any arguments placed on the field. What a pity to leave his side of the field defenseless. :( #3. My opponent, nevertheless, has asked questions with his analysis. *MAIN PHASE* I will answer my opponents questions: "Should we farm animals?" Currently, we should, until the time when we can genetically engineer crops in agriculture to the extent that there will be an almost endless supply of plants that we can eat. Then, instead of actual meats, we use meat analogues, foods that mimics the aesthetic qualities (primarily texture, flavor, and appearance) and/or chemical characteristics of certain types of meat. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... In case you're wondering whether we can consume enough protein from meat analogues, we can include textured vegetable proteins so we don't even have to touch meat whatsoever. Textured vegetable protein is made from soy flour, a by-product of making soybean oil and high in protein, and low in fat. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... "If so by what techniques?" http://www.amazon.com... http://www.nzqa.govt.nz... http://www.bffairrodeo.com... "Should we eat animals?" Yep; to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Unless the time comes when we can genetically engineer crops in agriculture to the extent that there will be an almost endless supply of plants that we can eat. "Should we hunt and fish them?" Yep; to maintain a healthy balanced diet. "Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc." Yep; animals do have rights. We just ignore them and violate their rights. ;D *Battle Phase* Animals do have rights. We just ignore them and violate their rights. My opponent should demonstrate why animals do not have rights. This is how we treat animals: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJfXami4haU http://www.mccruelty.com... Here are some interesting facts: Electric-immobilization systems require that birds be handled and processed while they are still alive and conscious, which causes them great suffering: * 1. Birds endure bruised and broken wings and legs and can suffocate when they are dumped and shackled. * 2. Frustrated workers often commit gruesome gratuitous acts of abuse and have been documented tearing live birds apart, spitting tobacco in their eyes, spray-painting their faces, stomping on them, punching them, kicking them, and even sexually assaulting them. * 3. Electric current levels are too low to render birds insensible to pain, and all birds are conscious as their throats are slit. * 4. Those animals who miss the blades—and millions do each year—are scalded to death in defeathering tanks. Source: http://www.peta.org... *Main phase two* It is my opponent's burden to prove that animals don't deserve rights, (rights that we violate everyday).
animal rights

The claim that animals have ï¿½€˜rightsï¿½€™ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ï¿½€˜animal rightsï¿½€™ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.
animal captivity

I accept. As Con, I will be arguing that the house should not keep animals in captivity. Before I begin, I would first like to define a term for clarity. Captivity is defined as "the condition of being imprisoned or confined" by the Oxford dictionary. [1] Now I will first rebut some of Pro's points. 1. "zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from habitat loss, starvation and predators" First of all, a zoo is not a safe environment for any animals. Captive animals are deprived of their natural environment. A cramped cage filled with artificial environment is not a safe place for animals. They cannot be protected from habitat loss because they have already lost their habitat by being placed in Zoos. Some of the food Zoos provide may fit the animals. Predators are part of nature and humans do not have rights to change nature. 2. "many zoos also have breeding program for endangered species, but in the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding" Reasonable statement. However, instead of simply placing endangered animals in captivity, we should spend our effort trying to prevent further species from becoming endangered. If a species is endangered, that means the availability of those species has decreased dramatically. Zoologists may not have enough empirical information to provide a safe, suitable circumstances for those species to mate. Now I will present some of my arguments. 1. Better use of money Holding animals captive cost a lot of money. Millions of dollars spent on holding animals captive can be instead spent on conserving environment and allowing animals to enjoy safe and natural habitat without being held captive. 2. Freedom Even if zoos have some benefits, they cost animals the one thing that they have: freedom. How would you feel if some organisms suddenly captured you and put you in a cramped cage filled with artificial and fake houses. They may feed you things that you may not like but in order to survive, you will have to eat whatever they give you. You are stared by thousands of strangers every day who may yell and shout at you. This is the life animals that are in captive have to go through every day. I will present more arguments next round. I await Pro's arguments and rebuttals. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The moral code of the christian religion is violent and hateful.

Thank you for your response. However it appears that we are digressing from the main topic of this debate: the moral code of the Christian religion is violent and hateful. Since the topic header does not specify any one particular Christian religion then it should be fair to deduce that it means the moral code of Christianity in general. We would then need to explore the teachings of Christ as they are generally accepted by all of Christianity as they relate to peace and violence. The header implies that we are discussing the teachings that Christians are supposed to believe in and adhere to and not the way Christians act upon those beliefs. "Sometimes it (religion) is used, even manipulated, to justify violence. There also is violence unrelated to religion that gets religiously charged because conflicting parties happen to be of different faiths."(1) The fact remains that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all preach peace. Too often, however, the teachings are corrupted to fuel hatred and violence. We are left to wonder if religions are in fact the source of the problem or are the solution. "Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning."(2) One of the principle beliefs of most of Christianity is the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible. Plenary meaning of the whole. In easier terms, what is the meaning of the whole work? I submit, taken as a whole, Christ's teachings are of peace and love, not violence and hate. I have yet to see you present any evidence that Christ, as a whole, taught violence and hate as a way of life. ______________________________ (1)Rev. Shanta Premawardhana, Interfaith Relations Director for the National Council of Churches USA (2)Robert Green Ingershall as quoted by www.religioustolerance.org/christ4.htm
The moral code of the christian religion is violent and hateful.

It is said that the mind is like a parachute: if it isn't open then it isn't working. So, I do agree with you there. However, I do not think that Christianity is violent at all but, perhaps, the interpretations of the teachings of Christ by religions can certainly be. It is also said that one can find a sentence or two in the Bible, take it out of context, and support any discussion that you wish. Would not it be a logical conclusion that if you accept Christ then you also accept the wholeness of His teachings? Rarely do I use Bible quotes to support an idea. Rather, I use Christ's basic teaching and example as a sort of litmus test. The gist of His message is pure love of others: love for the Creator/Father who instilled a part of His essence within us in the form of a soul and to love and treat our fellow human beings as we ourselves would like to be loved. Does what I am doing right now meet that test? Here is something to ponder. In history's time line at about the same time that Jesus was preaching in the Holy Land, the Lene Lenape Nation here in North America developed a legend that there appeared before the People a great White Chief whose message was peace amongst all of the Peoples. As the Son of God could Jesus have been this Great White Chief simultaneously appearing in two locations half a world apart? Is it religion that scares little kids or is it the way parents use God as a means of keeping little children in line? God is going to punish you if you do this…or that. Even as adults we try to continue this notion. How often in the heat of an argument have people said: "God help you if …" Man, as a whole, thinks it is all it and a bag of chips. We fail to notice that the bag is 80% hot air and 20% chips. How can we, as mere mortals, use man made language and words to describe the omnipotent, omniscient power commonly referred to as God? Does Creator have to have a sex at all? Within Christianity, many women hold religious positions. There are even Anglican female Bishops. The rules that you refer to prohibiting women from Holy Orders are rules made by church politic…not church Spiritual! The concept of honor Creator and honor your fellow man is universal to all of the world's major religions, including Islam. If I want to be treated the same way as I treat my fellow man then I, as a Christian, certainly wouldn't want to be violent with anyone.
The moral code of the christian religion is violent and hateful.

Before you here my argument, hear this. It is good to believe in something, it truly is; but do not be a slave to that belief. Beliefs change. Do not split your mind in two, and deny contradicting information because you are afraid of being seen as blasphemous. If you're beliefs are true, then you should be able to consider, hear other argumants, and be skeptical, and it will still be true. Splitting your mind is extremely unhealthy. Ponder on your beliefs, and let me start a seed of critical thinking in your mind. Christianity is really rather violent. The "holy" bible states that if you do not accept Jesus as your savior (if you are not a christian, essentially) you will be eternally tortured. It presents "god" as all forgiving. It also says that if you don't follow god's every demand then you will be tortured. This is the kind of belief that terrifies little kids. My main problem with the philosophy of christianity, is that it splits the world into the ridiciliusly simple, empty terms of "good" and "bad". What does that mean any way? For something to be good, it must mean it is beneficial to some cause. WHAT CAUSE? In the end, there is no higher purpose. Sure, people will say 'to preserve life and to a higher extent, the human race'. But what comes after that, will it really "matter" if the human race is wiped out tommorow. People often accuse Islam of being a sexist religion. This is a common misconception. Though it is true that many Muslim countries enforce sexist laws, the koran itself says nothing against women. In christianity, however, God is always, always portayed as a man. The idea of a feminine god seems absurd to christians. Also, Women can not have religious positions. Only men can have that "holy" job.
The moral code of the christian religion is violent and hateful.

Harlan, thank you for your insight and wisdom. I will defer to your decision and also will not post a closing argument. I think we both have stated all of our points. My friend, you are a very formidable opponent, and a worthy one! No matter what decision the readers reach, we are both winners here. We were able to express opposing viewpoints with sincerity, kindness, respect for each other, and understanding. You are on a path of seeking the truth. It is in seeking that you will find the answers that you need. At your age I had many doubts and questioned many parts of the religion that I was raised in. It took me 1/2 a lifetime to understand that Spirituality was far more important than formalized religion. I truly believe that every human has a right to his own opinion and beliefs. Believing that, then I must respect your beliefs and opinions. The purpose of the debate is to share ideas and learn from each other. Remember, Harlan, it is said that Jesus was the first Socialist. Thank you, my friend and best wishes to you! ~~Fred
The moral code of the christian religion is violent and hateful.

Thanks for acknowledging that Jesus, and therefore the moral code that He preached, was a peaceful person. Accepting your expanded debate topic, I offer the following: Just as humans can not accurately describe heaven, neither can we accurately describe hell. I offered a layman's description of hell in round one. It is neither violent nor hateful but a consequence of our actions here on earth. "A careful study of Scriptural uses of the words ‘life' and ‘death' will clearly show that the root ideas are respectively ‘union' and ‘separation'. Physical life is the union of the spirit with the body, spiritual life is the union of the spirit with God, and everlasting life is this union perfected and consummated to all eternity. Similarly, physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body, spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God, and eternal death is the perpetuation of this separation."(1) If there is any torture and hate involved in hell it is the self-torture of the condemned soul who knows he will never again see the glory and magnificence of the Creator and the self-hate of knowing that the cause was not choosing to do "the next right thing." The word "retribution" is preferred to "punishment" because Hell is the consequence of our choices here on earth. Cecil puts the matter succinctly: "Hell is the truth seen too late." Animals survive on instinct. Man survives by using his intellect to make choices. I can touch the flame and be burned or I can choose to not touch the flame. The fear of being burned is a beneficial fear that helps protect my well-being. Without a doubt, fire and brimstone preachers have stressed metaphorical descriptions of Hell as being unquenchable fire but these images are merely symbolic of the terrible reality of being eternally separated from Creator. Perhaps the assertion you made that early Christians decided to follow Christ because they feared Hell more has some validity. Could it not be, however, that they wanted so much more to be eternally in communion with the Creator that they decided to follow the example that Christ provided them? Rarely did Christ say, "You must do this or that." More often than not He said, "Come, follow Me!" A Theist believes in God through intellectual study as does an Atheist arrive at his decision not to believe. An Agnostic just isn't sure if God exists or not. A Gnostic intuitively knows in his heart, his soul, that there is a God. Exercising my free will I can choose to believe by listening to my soul. I choose to follow Christ's example of peace and love. I choose good over bad. In doing so, I choose to not be condemned to an eternal state of banishment from the presence of my Creator. It isn't God who punishes us. If we choose evil, we will punish ourselves in the end. ________________________________ (1)"What Christ Teaches Concerning Future Retribution" by William C. Procter, F.PH., Croydon, England: www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund41.htm
The moral code of the christian religion is violent and hateful.

Thank you for pointing us towards the subject. For it is some times the nature of debates to wander into other categories. Maybe I did phrase my header wrong to pertain to the actual arguments I was making (looking back on what I have written). I should have said "the concept of hell that is used to enforce the moral code of Christianity is violent and hateful". I still remain that many people follow this moral code out of nothing but fear, cold passionless fear. The bible says that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, than you will be punished in hell, which is in most peoples belief, is where they will be eternally tortured in the domain of Satan, who is fueled by anger, and is applied to things that Christians don't like. Over the course of my whole debate, though, I have been trying to exercise the point that the moral code does not work, because it splits everything into meaningless terms of "good" and "bad". I have also been trying to get across that it does not make sense that a god should be inclined to punish a human being, when a Human being does not have freewill. I do not disagree with the message of peace, and think that Jesus was a peaceful person for the most part (ignoring his doctrine of hell, which was certainly not peaceful) I have made all my points already, and here summarize them.
New Member Tournament: Libertarianism

OverviewThis debate will be very simple to adjudicate. I'm going to win straight off of the Social Contract. If you don't want to vote there, there is no reason to believe that Libertarianism is independently coherent.The Social ContractMy opponent fails to refute the most important internal justification for the social contract. Extend that: "In order to ever protect your rights you must create a system of social interaction that places value onto those lives. You must create a society, with a government based on the values of its members, to protect any libertarian ideals." Even if libertarian's respect a NAP, what rights they believe are attributed to individuals may differ. Only social interaction can coherently create an objective understanding of rights and liberties. My opponent does not refute the necessity of a society to place value on rights, so the social contract is going to serve as a gateway issue. Before we can even look at libertarian ideals we must access their conception of rights through a social contract. Because libertarian rights can only be conceived within the social contract, and the social contract necessarily implies a government that limits the rights of its citizens, libertarianism has been proven unsound.The Affirmative CaseMy opponent never clarifies to me how a government will function under libertarianism. He claims that it would be immoral to tax people to protect arbitrary morals, but agrees that cops are necessary to protect rights. Who is paying the cops? This essential link is missing. If cops are necessary to protect rights, and there is no funding for cops libertarianism cannot protect rights. A moral theory which claims to place ultimate value on liberty must proscribe some way to proactively protect that liberty to be coherent and sound.
New Member Tournament: Libertarianism

C1. The Social Contract Reality exists in a "state of nature." This state of nature is the libertarian ideal, where there is no government intervention. However, without a government there is no way to preserve your rights. Sure, you have unlimited rights, but you are your only mechanism of protecting them. There are no cops, there are no prisons, there are no hospitals. There is only you are everyone else. In order to ever protect your rights you must create a system of social interaction that places value onto those lives. You must create a society, with a government based on the values of its members, to protect any libertarian ideals. In doing this you sacrifice certain rights in order to protect others, such as the right to life. In essence, you must always cede some rights to protect others. R1. Libertarianism is incoherent when claiming to promote what is most "right." Before I get deeply into refuting this argument, I ask my opponent, HOW does libertarianism necessarily protect rights from being violated? What proactive measures does it take? I believe that a government would have to infringe upon rights in order to prevent the violation of other rights, but I leave it to my opponent to prove how this is not true. My opponent also claims that "Other systems force others to give up their money in order to fund the expeditions of the government or deny people from doing things that they arbitrarily declare as immoral." How do you suppose a libertarian government function if it is not funded by the people? R2. I have a simple question for my opponent. Do you advocate capitalism as the prime motivation for progress? My rebuttal of this point will be dependent on his answer. I expected to write more, but also expected my opponent to. If he need to make new responses in round 4 to my round 3 arguments due to the slow development of this debate, I am okay with it.