BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize dog fighting in USA.

"Agreed, but I don't see how this (my previous argument) helps your case for keeping dog fighting illegal." Because if something can result in that much harm to an animal just for entertainment value, it should not be legal. All laws are based on what's wrong and what's right, and dog fighting is most definitely wrong. "There is still police wasting resources and tax dollar chasing after dog fighters when they could be using those resources to catch other criminals. By legalizing dog fighting we would have more resources to fight other more serious criminals. We would destroy the organized crime around backyard dog fighting. " Yeah, but if you fight dogs to the death just for sport, you deserve to be in prison. You could just as easily argue that we should legalize mugging to keep all muggers out of prison. For the most part, I agree with statements like the one I quoted from you; for example, I believe we should legalize pot and gambling, among other things, to stop the black market for them (as I said earlier, I'm very libertarian). But forcing dogs to fight is where I draw the line. "Eating is a necessity, eating meat is not. Therefore, eating meat is entertainment. I've proven this last round." There is a huge difference between eating meat and killing animals for sport. Even God gives us permission to eat meat. Genesis 9:3 (according to the NKJ translation) "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." Thanks for the debate. This has been very fun. By the way, I've been wondering this the whole time; how did you make the parts of my text that you quoted black and italicized? Can you comment how you did it, because I'd really like to know for future debates?
Legalize dog fighting in USA.

"Even with your proposed safety guidelines, that would still not change the fact that those animals would get mutilated, and there is no valid reason to mutilate an animal just for your own entertainment." stschiffmanAgreed, but I don't see how this helps your case for keeping dog fighting illegal. "And , as I said earlier, just because both drugs and dog fighting occur on the black market does not make them equal. The drug war has lead to billions in profit for the cartels, mass incarcerations, hundreds of police and civilian deaths, and billions of wasted tax dollars, all for plants; outlawing dog fighting has done none of that. As a whole, I'm pretty libertarian; for the most part, I believe in people making their own choices, but not when those choices lead to dead dogs." stschiffmanYou are correct in that the scale is different. Yet, there is still police wasting resources and tax dollar chasing after dog fighters when they could be using those resources to catch other criminals. By legalizing dog fighting we would have more resources to fight other more serious criminals. We would destroy the organized crime around backyard dog fighting. Finally, you have provided no evidence that legalizing dog fighting would increase the number of fights. Even if this does, it would be offset by limiting steroid use. "Pro said that there is not much of a difference between killing for eating and killing for sport, but there is. Eating is a necessity, entertainment is not." Eating is a necessity, eating meat is not. Therefore, eating meat is entertainment. I've proven this last round. Thanks for the debate.
Legalize dog fighting in USA.

Even with your proposed safety guidelines, that would still not change the fact that those animals would get mutilated, and there is no valid reason to mutilate an animal just for your own entertainment. And , as I said earlier, just because both drugs and dog fighting occur on the black market does not make them equal. The drug war has lead to billions in profit for the cartels, mass incarcerations, hundreds of police and civilian deaths, and billions of wasted tax dollars, all for plants; outlawing dog fighting has done none of that. As a whole, I'm pretty libertarian; for the most part, I believe in people making their own choices, but not when those choices lead to dead dogs. Pro said that there is not much of a difference between killing for eating and killing for sport, but there is. Eating is a necessity, entertainment is not. Thanks for debating. I also look forward to your next response.
Legalize dog fighting in USA.

Forcing dogs to fight each other to the death is simply immoral and unethical. Pro says that by legalizing it we could have general guidelines to ensure safety, but when it comes to dog fighting, that would be almost impossible. Even in boxing, when it's just two humans with padded gloves, accidents still abound (not that I want to ban boxing, I'm simply making a point); imagine what the carnage would be if boxers fought with sharp teeth and claws; insuring safety would take an act of God. Pro compares this to prohibition, and to the drug war, but this is not a very good equivalency. Men like Al Capone and Pablo Escobar became rich off drugs/alcohol, and created huge crime waves. I do not think that keeping dog fighting illegal has created the massive gang violence and mass incarcerations that the war on drugs and prohibition did. There is no real justification for why this should be legal; it's one thing to kill an animal to eat, but a whole different matter to force animals to fight to the death for your amusement.
Legalize dog fighting in USA.

We should legalize dog fighting in the USA. I think we should legalize dog fighting to discourage the black market. Despite being illegal, dog fighting is a booming business. [0] Just as we have lost the war on drugs and prohibition we have lost the war on dog fighting. I care for animals and I think this is the best way to increase their quality of life. By legalizing dog fighting we can have guidelines on what is going too far and what is tolerable. We could use the proceeds to help other animals in need and the environment. This is tax money that is being thrown down the toilet trying to enforce a non-enforceable crime. I think dog fighting is immoral, yet we can't let our good intentions cloud our judgement. Many people think adult bookstores are immoral, Lust, yet they are legal. This article here states why we shouldn't abolish meat, and I think we can extrapolate the same is true for dog fighting. [1] Simply put, but using the state and making dog fighting illegal, we are causing more suffering and pain to dogs. The complete opposite of what most animal advocates are attempting. I conclude anyone with an interest in animal welfare must endorse the legalization of dog fighting. Thank you for the debate. Sources.0. http://www.cnn.com...1. https://medium.com...
Conservatism (con) vs. Liberalism (pro)

I really appreciate you having defined conservatism and that you have cited your source. I already knew what it meant, but I appreciate the reminder. For now, I would like to remain on the topic of conservatism in the United States. You have not given me any argument besides the definition of conservatism. If you yearn to win this debate, fight for it and don't expect to win it simply by trying. Now, let us return to the debate. Conservatism may work in some rare cases, but liberalism prevails in most cases. Now, because I do not want to copy and paste text and because I do not want to rewrite the entire thing, I will state a link that states some of the differences between liberals and conservatives. http://www.diffen.com... Now, taking into consideration my previous argument, as well as this new URL, please tell me why you are a conservative.
Conservatism (con) vs. Liberalism (pro)

con"ser"va"tism (kn-s"rv-tzm) n. 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. 3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook Source- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Conservatism (con) vs. Liberalism (pro)

I will make my main argument now: I am a liberal because I hear the pleas of the American people and I truly believe and know that liberalism is nearly always an ideology incomparable to conservatism when speaking of economic stability and personal rights. Conservatives, primarily Republicans and TEA Party members, talk about "restoring America". Now, if you take their argument literally, it would mean restoring slavery, discrimination towards women, the Articles of Confederation, etc. What ideology was it that made this country so great? This was liberalism. What ideology was it that rid us of the bigotry and injustice of slavery? This was liberalism. What ideology was it that promoted economic growth? This was liberalism. Now, conservatives never specified what it was about "the old days" that were so good. I recognize how Republicans and other conservatives can admire a president such as Reagan and Eisenhower. But I do not understand why they would want to go back to those policies and ways of life. As we progress, we must find new solutions to new problems and move forward. Conservatism is about smaller government and unfair taxes. I do not support big government, but I support a bigger government than that what the Republicans and other conservatives would provide. The people need a government to lead them and keep this nation stable. When Obama increased government interaction in his first term, the recession was resolved for the most part. This is my main argument and I believe my point has been made. If you make a counter argument, I will challenge your argument and the debate shall escalate to a new level. And I cannot site my sources now due to me not having used any. These facts should be common knowledge and I obtained these from my brain.
Conservatism (con) vs. Liberalism (pro)

The first round is to simply state the rules and open the debate. I will not make an argument in this first round, but I will make long and deep arguments in the next rounds. I will state the rules: 1. You must site your sources, if you have any. 2. Use good conduct and do not insult your opponent. 3. If you attack or challenge an opinion, do it respectfully. I am looking forward to debating this topic with you.
Modern Music On the Radio

"Kleptin, this is purely opinion, and has nothing to do with my actual claim. Taste can mean that someone just doesn't like the way the music sounds, but that in itself isn't unhealthy or bad for society." I never said it had anything to do with your claim. I'm just emphasizing the point that the purpose of modern music on the radio is beyond what people like to hear, that's all. "Now you also mentioned something about this "garbage" music appealing to the majority of people. That is unfortunately true, but truth is not measured in mass appeal-" Argumentum ad Populum doesn't apply here. Truth is not measured in mass appeal, but I'm not trying to argue that the popularity of the music makes it good. I'm arguing that the popularity of the music corresponds to an increase in revenue, which is why we should expect that type of music to be on the air as opposed to other kinds of music. "Through things like MTV, people are fed an image of life...Let's not forget, the radio is entirely public- a four-year-old can tune in at any time..." In this section, my opponent details the social consequences of broadcasting this music. I need to remind my opponent that media influence on pop culture is not unidirectional, it is cyclical. The media exists to provide stimulus and excitement by stretching social boundaries. Anything beyond that would be rejected by society and would have no effect on it. Through time, society would become more and more tolerant of this stretching and would require additional stimulus, much like how one develops a muscle. In other words, there must have been an appeal towards this sort of violent lifestyle for society to accept its existence in music, and following with this cyclical trend, we are beginning to see more and more of it. This means that the modern music you are hearing is a reflection of a natural change in society and societal ideals. "You also mentioned advertisement... What's more important: the sponsors, or the musical creators? On a side note(and purely my opinion), I believe that music and the market for music is changing. No longer does a musical artist need to pay a recording label to market their music, put it on the radio, and put it where people can hear it. Now, anybody can get a myspace page and throw their music up there, make a website, and directly market their music- The playing field is evening out." My opponent assumes I will answer that we should value the creators of music more than the sponsors, and following that, argues that we allow for artistic expression in other methods, and need not broadcast it on radio. First of all, I can say that the answer to the first question is irrelevant to this debate. The issue is whether modern style music should be banned from radio. Broadcasting music that will generate revenue from sponsors does not harm musical creators, so this is a false dichotomy and should be ignored. Second, I would like to respond to my opponent's point on music and the changes in music. If it is true that anyone can market their music, isn't it fair that any type of music should be allowed to be played on the radio?
Modern Music On the Radio

The meat of it all: First of all, we'll have to analyze Kleptin's response. ****"Though I actually do find today's modern music to be of very bad taste" Kleptin, this is purely opinion, and has nothing to do with my actual claim. Taste can mean that someone just doesn't like the way the music sounds, but that in itself isn't unhealthy or bad for society. Now you also mentioned something about this "garbage" music appealing to the majority of people. That is unfortunately true, but truth is not measured in mass appeal- Through things like MTV, people are fed an image of life. Much rap on the radio advertises the idea that these rappers would blow somebody away for looking at them wrong, and sell crack just because they want money for some new rims... Also, the idea is thrown at women to go after those rappers, and put on minimal clothing and dance on their cars- One such song is by a rapper by the name of "Yung Joc", with a song called "It's goin' down", which is still all over the radio.... Here are the lyrics, in which he's talking about a trap, going around with a pistol on his lap, and of course- all for money: http://www.metrolyrics.com... Analyzing it further, most people do not know what a trap is. A trap is a slang word for a place where dealers will gather to sell drugs- mainly crack, sold in somewhat of a drive-through fashion. Now the FCC(Federal Communications Commission) says that rappers can't say the F-word on the radio, but it's alright to promote dangerous drugs and violent, gun-pulling mentalities... See the problem here? Is this anything for kids to grow up listening to? Music does reflect life, and kids mimic these people they look up to- crack dealers make terrible role models, in my opinion. Let's not forget, the radio is entirely public- a four-year-old can tune in at any time... You also mentioned advertisement... What's more important: the sponsors, or the musical creators? On a side note(and purely my opinion), I believe that music and the market for music is changing. No longer does a musical artist need to pay a recording label to market their music, put it on the radio, and put it where people can hear it. Now, anybody can get a myspace page and throw their music up there, make a website, and directly market their music- The playing field is evening out.
Christianity is fundamentally immoral.

Yes, I am very sorry I missed the deadline for my response. As such, I feel it would be unfair of me to post a long argument you can not respond to, and I feel satisfied with the debate we have already had. Therefore, I will make this a simple post == Good Game== This debate was fun and enjoyable and I am as impressed with my opponent, who is few cuts above most religious debaters I have seen, as he is with me. I wish him good luck with the voters.
Christianity is fundamentally immoral.

It is in my view that at Christianity's fundamental levels, it is immoral. Reasons: 1. Christianity allows for the scapegoating of responsibility and consequences, through the medium of Jesus Christ. 2. Christianity allows for people to live immoral lives, but still reach salvation by repenting and accepting Jesus at their lord and savior. 3. Christianity, if true, is damning 6.2 billion people, living today, to hell because they don't accept or known of Jesus Christ. 4. Christianity damns homosexuals to hell for being who they naturally are. 5. Christianity allows for complacency. People don't feel the need to aide in humanitarian efforts, because in their view, this life is a small and insignificant portion of their eternal being. 6. God is said to transcend time and space and have knowledge of past, present, and future. With this knowledge, he still allowed humans to develop into a failed experiment, he gave an Earth with limited and scarce resources, he allowed slavery and genocide to be acceptable in the Old Testament, and he doesn't do a damn thing to stop it. 7. God is said to be omnipotent, omnipresence, and benevolent. Given these three attributes, he is either apathetic, powerless, or cruel. 8. To quote Sir Richard Dawkins, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." 9. Christians never act altruistically, in an organized humanitarian effort, without bring Bibles. How about just doing it for the sake of humanity? And yes, I realize the New Testament is followed more than the Old Testament, but the core and basis of your God is nonetheless revealed to be sadist and failure.
Down With BOP.

BOP is unfair because it's trusting your opponent to not twist the context, allowing them to see what they only want to see to basically deny and move onto the next debate doing the same thing over. Here's a hint: BOP is the reason why religion vs. non-religion has never settled their dispute, where as non-religious and religious that kept it mutual and relative by only asking questions rather than wanting answers, have managed friendship or even more. Arguing BOP in this today's era is like playing chess with a pigeon. You simply cannot stack proof against ignorance - it does not work - ignorance is unlimited; BOP is limited. It's more intelligent to ask questions back and forth that way things remain mutual and relative. If you keep trying to argue proof with ignorance, the ignorance will easily swallow everything you have, while still convincing itself that it has the upper-hand after doing absolutely nothing. This is why you do not argue with a child or a monkey or a cat. Rules: There is no acceptance round - the button that says "Accept" is you accepting the round. I give my argument first because I have no fear of somehow my opponent having an "edge" over me. People that worry about this are truly demonstrating how their foundation for debating wavers ever so easily.
Down With BOP.

I didn't imply it. I said that the world being either entirely smart or entirely stupid was a false dichotomy. Stop using a straw man. It is not a red herring. It is an example of how rationality can lead to suboptimal outcomes. I described in meticulous detail how rational choice can still result in outcomes that a simplistic analysis might lead you to believe is the result of stupidity, but in reality this is a childish view, as I have already explained. No, I'm sorry, you can't change the definition of terms just because you want to. Burden of proof refers to the obligation to prove one's assertion, as I mentioned previously. We cannot determine justice on the basis of hunches. Innocent until proven guilty is the best system because it protects people from being imprisoned unjustly. Justice was never based on psychology or philosophy. You have provided no real-world examples for any of your claims. I haven't used any tautologies. I'm not toying with anything. You have given no examples for any of these claims. You also still haven't addressed my proof. Calling it a tautology when it isn't does not address it.
Down With BOP.

You implied it. I mean, you're seriously arguing people's idiocy as if it's that controversial. I know the prisoner's dilemma - it's a red herring on your part. What I am describing is the nature of BOP that people like you are too stupid to understand as you fail to expand your brain's wing span. Do you know those guys who get caught that are active in business that say "You have no proof", even though their behavioral patterns tell us the story in the first place? That's the system we need in place - not BOP. We need to go back to psychology and philosophy, not politics. Politics has done nothing except turn people into polite ticks that suck out the life of everyone who is against politics. I can say that you have not won by the way you argue via tautologies rather than blunt truth. You toy with debates and you pull cards because you're not legitimate - you're a player.
Down With BOP.

Wait, are you saying that by calling someone an "idiot" it means they will be an idiot for the rest of their lives? My, my, you really are an idiot. In life, confessing involves punishment no matter what, which discourages people from being honest and true to themselves. People in this world also take honesty for granted anyways, so being honest in this world is the hardest sacrifice. Most people that say they are honest really aren't remotely honest, when their honesty is personal, not practical. The world is not perfect is all you have to call this cess pool we created call life? People believe everything they want to believe no matter how stupid it is. People are the reason why wars, hatred, religion and other signs of ignorance exist, like I don't know.... genius and intelligence suffering because all places in the world thrive off of idiocy? Hell, capitalism wouldn't even survive if it were in a world of intellects, rather than brain dead sheep that wonder why their wool is flammable. Your example ignores the most important point in my argument: the queen kills a man through BOP because people see death (decision) before they see details (description). People act before they think - BOP encourages acting before thinking. BOP uses forms of evidence that are not objective, unbiased and strictly heavy on the universal side. It is strictly personal, hence evidence is not evidence to everyone - hence why atheists and theists have been at each other's throats for as long as man has existed. Anyone can say "evidence" make up nonsense, and get away with it, hence why you're here being an idiot and saying BOP is perfectly fine, after I just explained why it's not fine, and on top of that, you'd rather argue me and what I have to say over drug cartels, religions and conspiracy theorists because you're a full on hypocrite.