BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Owning and Caring For a Pet is Unethical

I affirm that owning and caring for a pet(s) is unethical. Ethical is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "in accordance with the principles of ethics; morally correct, honourable", and so we can define unethical as anything that is not morally correct or honourable. When we consider questions of an ethical nature, we must clearly state our values to defend our decisions. The key value that pertains to this debate today (and must always be considered in ethical dilemmas) is the value of human life. The sanctity of human life must be valued and preserved before one considers luxuries such as comfort and entertainment, or even personal security. To deny this would be unjust. To place emphasis on this fact, I introduce the criterion of equality. Equality is "the condition of having equal rank, power, excellence, etc., with others" (OED). When we have gained equality, the value of human life will have been upheld (in whatever propensity that may be). Americans Alone Spend $61,000,000,000 On Pets Annually This statistic is stunning. It is undeniable that the average American pet has a higher quality of life than many people living in the impoverished nations of the world. This cannot be defended with justice or equality- it is a travesty against them. Pet ownership thus disvalues human life, making it unethical. (http://www.usnews.com...)
Owning and Caring For a Pet is Unethical

I. Religious Grounds, Rebuttal A. Yes, religion and law are subjective to some extent. Law is less subjective than religion, however, because it is equally applicable to all persons in a society regardless of personal conviction or interpretation. Additionally, this is a question of ethics. Ethics supersede religious or national preference and are universal truths. Morality is what is truly, ultimately right. I merely state all this to conclude that religious text is not a reliable source, even if it did place higher value in pet ownership than human life. B. You are correct that dominion does not justify harsh treatment of animals. However, this does not esteem animals above man in value. C. I do not justify animal abuse (as I think very few would), but you present a false dichotomy. Our choice is not a. ) animal abuse or b. ) pampered pets. We bear no responsibility to care for animals. Animals are equipped to survive in nature, and to go out of the way to treat them with similar care and dignity to humans while others from our species suffer like animals is immoral. We must take care of our own kind first. II. Symbiotic Relationships -Animals strictly for medical or functional purposes are not pets by definition. For instance, seeing-eye dogs maintain a certain degree of a professional relationship with their owners and to some extent cannot interact with strangers. Their purpose is functional and aids a human. - Moral claim: Yes, if we ultimately follow the logic of this argument to its conclusion, we find that not only is pet ownership unethical in the face of human struggle, but so are most things that we do on a daily basis (internet use). However, I do not claim to be some holy ethical man. Technically speaking, it would not affect this argument if I was a deranged rapist. This argument concerns an ethical question, not how we allow it to impact our choices. -No BOP: I do not hold any responsibility to recommend a plan for what percentage of income should be spent on pets (especially since my premise explicitly states that we should not have them in the first place). This debate covers only the scope of pet ownership, which is clearly not a necessity. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to show any situation in which owning a pet for purely recreational enjoyment supersedes the value of human life. It is remarkable to think how laughable it is to imagine ridding ourselves of all our unnecessary possessions for the betterment of man- but what should our resolution be? That this seemingly innate greed feels so natural and pleasurable to us that we should deem it moral? That since we don"t suffer, we shouldn"t care? We must accept that our daily lives revolve to a certain extent around a powerful egocentricity and a. ) accept that we are unethical and continue with the status quo or b. ) reconsider our lifestyles.
Owning and Caring For a Pet is Unethical

I. Religious GroundsA. I remarked that many other religious have similar verse I can not in the short space quote from every holy text. Laws are not universally accepted either. They are vastly different from many countries so this is neither a solid answer on ethics.B. The difference is being a good leader or boss. The responsibility of Dominion is not void of mercy and caring, and is not indicative of being harsh. It is the proper weighing of all situations. Some of which may be detrimental to a subordinate or to oneself.C. The value of human life over that of a sparrow is not an excuse for abusive dominion of animals. And I already agreed the money spent and energy spent on pets that results in over population, more animal abuse, and more human abuse is unethicalII. You didn't make this distinction before in your first or second round. And it is not evident in your resolution. I feel my arguments still stand as refuting your statement. Certainly the line for a functional animal like livestock is more black and white than my cat. My cat is a pet. I enjoy her company and she enjoys mine. She will on occasion yelp and scratch at the door just to see me for a few minutes and play with a turf of grass or my hat. This line is not as cut and dry as employee and employer. So no they are not simply functional. It's a healthy symbiotic relationship. Emotional as well as functional. Animals have personalities and I have to be aware of her personal needs just as much as her physical needs. It's those bonding moments that reinforce her confidence, and social standing in the home.How would you classify pets for terminally ill children or dogs for PTSD veterans? pets in the very sense of the word.Your assertion, " it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly". Is such a subjective measure. You are paying for entertainment and Internet. This money could go to helping impoverished humans. Where is the rightful percentage of how much to spend on others, and how much of the money you work for can ethically be spent on yourself. You have given no argument to where this line is. Let's say it is 10% to charity. Then once that 10% is met, a person is ethically allowed to spend the money on a pet or a movie. I would argue that people are selfish and many more people would be impoverished if a society made such rules. Who would work hard to make more money for any luxury if it was outlawed as being a needless expense. Not to mention that a society like that would quickly lobby for me to switch to rat poison instead of having my "functional pet."
The Big Ten chose correctly in sending Ohio State to the 1974 Rose Bowl.

Also I would like to apologize before hand if my responses are delayed as I just started college and have quite a bit of work, but I will do my best to respond timely. Through my contentions over the course of this debate I look to show how The Big Ten made a poor decision by choosing to send Ohio State to the 1974 Rose Bowl. I will do this by showing that the Big Ten should not have made the decision at all. During the 1973 season both Ohio State and the University of Michigan were undefeated going into the final game against each other. The game ended in a 10 all tie, and forced the Big Ten committee to make a decision. The Big Ten had a policy at the time in which only one team would advance on to a bowl game, that game being the Rose bowl. As only one team was able to go to a bowl, and both teams had a perfect record it was not the Big Ten's place to choose which team was to play in the Rose Bowl. They did however choose the team by placing votes by phone. These votes were anonymous originally and therefore grudges could come out. Michigan State was thought to have voted no for Michigan as Michigan had cast a no vote when Michigan State was attempting to join the Big Ten. Other grudges could come out, and therefore extremely alter the votes. Their are a few options that the Big Ten could have looked at that would have avoided this voting fiasco. Firstly being would be to take into account the two teams points for and points against stats. This would accurately show the strength of the two teams offense, defense, and special teams. Secondly the difficulty of the teams schedule could be taken into account. Depending on which team had a more difficult schedule it would show which team was able to still win against better teams. Finally, the least advisable way, would be for the two teams to have a "playoff" match. In which the winner would go on to play in the Rose Bowl. In closing the Big Ten committee was wrong in choosing which team was to play in the 1974 Rose Bowl as they should have not even made the decision. Their were far better ways to make the decision.
The Big Ten chose correctly in sending Ohio State to the 1974 Rose Bowl.

In 1973, both Ohio State and Michigan marched into their showdown undefeated with the Rose Bowl riding on the outcome. The teams tied, and the Big Ten voted 6-4 to send Ohio State to the Rose Bowl instead of Michigan. Bo Schembechler, Michigan's coach, was furious, but my contention is that the Big Ten chose correctly.
The Big Ten chose correctly in sending Ohio State to the 1974 Rose Bowl.

I hope my opponent is able to get an argument in for the final round. I shall use this round simply to reiterate, in simplified fashion, my arguments from the first round. The debate is about whether or not The Big Ten Commissioners chose correctly in sending Ohio State to the Rose Bowl in 1974. Ohio State and Michigan tied for first in the conference, and tied when they met on the field. This necessitated a vote, however regrettable such a situation was. In choosing between two tied teams, it made more sense to send the team that was seen as better. It also might make some sense to see which had a better chance of beating USC on January 1st. There is good reason to believe that Ohio State was a better team than Michigan in 1973. They scored more points per game, gave up fewer points per game, and performed better against the same opponents. They also tied in Ann Arbor, a site which one would expect to favor Michigan, and did so with an injured quarterback, while Michigan's played virtually the entire game healthy. There is also good reason to believe that Ohio State was more likely to defeat USC than Michigan. They had a coach with more experience who had a winning record, at the time, in the Rose Bowl. Michigan's coach was winless in two tries. Ohio State's quarterback would be fully healthy come January, while Michigan's was not expected to recover in time from a broken collarbone. Finally, ex post facto, we can note that Ohio State did indeed win that Rose Bowl, by 42-21, and gave The Big Ten its only Rose Bowl win of that decade. The Big Ten sent the better team, also the team more likely to win, and they proved The Big Ten right in their choice. I await my opponent's reply.
Abortion : Fetus don't have rights

Response to your argument "if i cut my arm off the arm dies. if you cut the umbillical cord early, the fetus dies. further proveing that the fetus it not its own liveing thing and it should not have more rights the the person birthing it" This proves that the fetus got its own life. It's just the mother's duty to take care of her child while it is weak. ... My opinion Thanks for accepting the debate I. I'm a pro life because of my opinion (value the child) I'm a pro-choice because i don't force my opinion (mother's freedom of choice) II. I believe it's a child for it has parents. If you're about to dispute this, convince me that 'fetus are parentless' I'll explain it further What is fetus? It is human fetus that came or begotten . What do you call to something that you begotten? Your child III. The mothers don't abort their baby because they love the child even if they're poor. IV. Mother should abort only when pregnancy complication occure for the mother's life is more important. V. Mother's life is more important but we should also value the human fetus for we came from it and it's the child of the carrier VI. If there's no financial support for pregnancy resources then go to charities. VII.if mothers value life then they don't want the baby then they will let the child live and send it to orphange ... FACTS We need facts not just opinion tough it may not defend my position. -According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day. -A similar procedure after the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb is known as a "late termination of pregnancy" -at fifth week the baby's tiny heart begins to beat " at twice the rate of yours. His entire "body" is only about the size of a sesame seed This fact can be used of pro-life For heart is the core of human being If the fetus has it then its a human.
Debate.org should have an actual competition using provided topics

Well to start with......I really like your topic and I think that is what explains the importance of not having site staffs provide you with a topic. Yes I agree that the topics provided in the challenge period does get boring sometimes but we should always remember that somebody is willing to debate on the topic he or she has started . Like I got interested in yours. If the topics are already provided then it would be just like the debate club of the school. Here the people are allowed to showcase their own views on different matters and choose their own debates. As for having "THE BEST DEBATOR", life is not always about winning or being the best at something. People who debate here do it because they love to do it. So one should be willing not to implement or maintain a competition as you suggested but introduce innovative topics for debating, like yours. Thank you
Lie Detectors are Effective and Beneficial

Since the Pro has forfeited his second round, I, unfortunately, have no arguments to rebut. Pro has failed to provide any examples nor arguments to back his opinion up. Lie detectors are ineffective and may be harmful. It is too inaccurate for them to be used as a solid evidence in the judicial system. Innocent people may be shown to be guilty and the guilty may be presented as innocent according to the polygraph. It cannot distinguish between anxiety and guilt, both of which result in changes in perspiration rate, respiration rate and heart rate. 1 in 3 innocent people are shown to be guilty. 33% is an extremely high rate. You could be in that unfortunate 33%.
Lie Detectors are Effective and Beneficial

I wonder how Pro detected any lies in my statements are my opinion and therefore cannot be considered a lie and a polygraph, a typical lie detector, functions by documenting many physiological factors such as respiration, perspiration, and heart rate. Despite the popular belief, lie detectors are not effective at all. Lie detector, also known as a polygraoh, does not directly detect lies. Rather, they measure physical responses that accompany emotions. The examier notes these responses as one answers questions. Examiners first start with a control question to establish base rates. The examiner determines the truth in the answers by analyzing the rise and fall of these physiological responses. First of all, the lie detector operates under a false assumption that people remain calm when telling the truths. Its principles iunder which it operates are crude and false. Although lie detectors may look scientific and credible, they are not falseproof. According to the reseach conducted by the American Polygraph Association itself, polygraph was proven accurate only about 80% of time. [1] This means that 1 in 5 people tested by the lie detectors are falsely accused of crimes. Also, the polygraph accuracy rate at around 65 percent that is only slightly better than the 50 percent correct one would get by flipping a coin. [2] The rate of inaccuracy is too high for any judicial system to use the results of polygraph as solid evidence. In addition, many of the questions asked evoke heightened tension and arousal. The questions may be intrusive or accusatory causing some people distressed. The fear of being disbelieved also contribute to the unreliability of polygraphs. When a mother in Yakima, Washington was accused of sexually abusing her step-son, she failed the polygraph test. Upon further investigation, she was asked disturbing and accusatory questions. The accused mother understandably reacted with greater perspiration and blood pressure when asked those types of questions. Fortunately, the mother's attorney located a scientific expert who persuaded the jury that polygraph is not a credible evidence of guilt. [3] As such there are countless instances of polygraph tests that considered innocent people guilty. Secondly, polygraph cannot distinguish among anxiety, irritation, and guilt. Studies by psychologiests David Lykken and Leonard Saxe indicate that people's physiological arousal is much the same for most emotions. They go on to state that a polygraph test err approximatel 33% of the time. They criticize that the 'lie detetcting test' actually measures the level of fear and anxiety. [4] It is a fact that polygraph cannnot distinguish guilt from honest fear. I eagerly await Pro's arguments and rebuttals. [1] . http://www.polygraph.org... [2] . http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] Myers, David G. . Psychology. 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2004. Print. [4] Vrij, Aldert. Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley, 2008. Print.
Resolved: Sentience is of ethical relevance to the treatment of living things.

Rules:1. There are no restrictions on argumentative strategy.2. Burden of proof is shared.3. This debate concerns the resolution:RESOLVED: Sentience is of ethical relevance to the treatment of living things.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Rules and Definitions in R1 are binding. Substantively violating the R1 agreements will result in loss of both argument and conduct.6. Spelling/Grammer and Conduct will NOT be voted on unless: a) explicitly argued for in the debate round AND b) voting occurs on the grounds argued for in the debate.7. Sources must be posted or linked in the debate round. Voting on Sources should be reserved for extreme discrepancy in quality of sources. Definitions:Sentience- the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences.
The hijab and/or niqab should be banned

This debate is impossible to accept. If you somehow manage to accept, you will have to forfeit or it will be considered a loss.TheHitchslap and I agreed to focus this debate to the niqab only. The proposition of this debate: "The niqab should be banned in public places (specifically outdoors, in the streets of London for example)". I am a Christian, a liberal and a secular (beat that :) !)I will argue against a ban for the niqab. Pro would argue for the ban.Please note that I am not referring to certain exceptions, such as passing through an airport, or when the woman has to ID herself.If you have questions regarding the debate, please ask in the comments. I am looking for a serious debater. Rules 4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voting: 2,500 Elo For the sake of the reader, the format will be: Round 1 Con: Resolution and rules.Round 1 Pro: Pro's arguments. Round 2 Con: Con's arguments.Round 2 Pro: Rebuttal only (No new arguments) Round 3 Con: Rebuttal only (No new arguments)Round 3 Pro: Defense of contentions (No rebuttals) and a conclusion Round 4 Con: Defense of contentions (No rebuttals) and a conclusionRound 4 Pro: Pro must waive the final round by typing "Round waived". 1. No forfeits. 2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.4. No trolling.5. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).6. No deconstructional semantics.7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. I look forward for an exciting debate.
It is impossible to fully win this debate.

Extend all my arguments. Drop all of his. As in his R3 he did not mention the criteria/burdens set up in R1, his concession in this debate doesn't mean he's won. And even if I give him that, he's never applied those two original arguments on himself: Nowhere in his two points does he point out specifically why him forfeiting wins him the round. In my R1 I tell you that "[s]ince the resolution states "impossible" and I am on the CON, all I need to do to win the debate is provide a way to fully win the debate. It doesn't matter at all whether or not we decide to take the possibility; only that there is a way. " I have shown a way to negate the resolution and the PRO concedes.
It is impossible to fully win this debate.

But, if you truly believe that you've won, then you've won it all haven't you? If I believe I have a turkey sandwich, does that grant me a turkey sandwich. Rene Descartes once said: "I think therefore I am. " or 'cogito ergo sum. ' Descartes original statement was, " I doubt therefore I am (dubito ergo sum)", which he changed in fear of the reaction of the Catholic church and not wanting to be another Bruno (i. e. , a Roman Catholic religious who was burned alive at the stake for his philosophical writings and beliefs). That being said, Descartes was stating that if he doubted, he existed but never once does he mention that if he doubts, other entities exist. The same can be applied here. Simply because you believe, doubt, entrust into a certain notion, rub yourself with magick cream and make a wish doesn't mean any of that exists. My opponent attempts to refute using: "My sole argument against the resolution is that fully win[ning] is completely dependent on a point of view. And to fully win this debate, it's fairly simple. All that we have to do is believe that we won. How we see the world is how our world appears to us. " That is only true in some cases but if you look back on the original resolution, you'll see that it does NOT say "It is impossible to win this debate" No, quite the contrary. It says, "It is impossible to FULLY win this debate. " Therefore, You have won in some sense and you have lost in others. And even going by your logic, I have still won and lost, ergo, because I will have believed I have won and you will believe you have won. Nevermind the votes, The wotes have, apparently, been given as only a sidebar. Please, make your rebuttal.