BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

Welcome to the debate, ladies and gentlemen. So under the motion This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat,I would like to go for today's motion. The arguments will soon be presented as the Con accepts today's debate. Thank you very much for accepting today's debate. Now let's move on to the main debate. So in our current status quo, there are many people who are violating the rights of the animals. This lead to many individuals, and organizations to oppose and stand for the animals, saying that we have the obligation to protect the rights of any kind of living creatures in this world. Moving on to the rebuttals, I would like to rebut to the points the Opposition has stated. Basically what the opposition has been saying is that we could eat other living creatures for our own goods. Now what I see is problematic, is that we could kill and butcher other creature when we are in need. As a responsible government, I believe that killing another creature is immoral in the first place, and also I would like to rebut other points in my arguments. Before we move on, I would like to define some few key words in today's debate. This house regards to the democratic government of all nations. Consumption regards to any kind of digestion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to move on to my first two arguments. 1. Justification The proposition believes that it is not justified to kill another creature living in this world. Every single living creature deserves the life to live, as long as there are no third-party harms. Ladies and gentlemen, what the animals lack than the human being is, intelligence. They are capable of doing everything else, like eating sleeping, or expressing emotions. However, they lack intelligence to judge, to make decisions, and whatnot. So what the opposition is basically saying, is that we could also kill the people who lack intelligence, like disabled people! The proposition believes that what the opposition has been saying is very offending to the others. Therefore, we believe that killing animals is not a legitimate action for human beings to do. 2. Animal Rights Ladies and gentlemen, we believe that animals have the rights to be protected, and whatnot. The proposition believes that it is the government's role to set the moral standard in the society. In other words, we believe that the government the obligation to tell people what is wrong, and what is right to do. Ladies and gentlemen, is it okay to eat your companion if you are lacking of food? Is it okay to give up your dignity when it comes to scarcity of food? The proposition firmly claims that no matter how hungry you are, you should never ever eat your companion. Dogs are different from horses, cows, chickens, and pigs. Those animals are not raised as your companion. Some people may have them as pets, but do they actually care much as dogs and cats, where you buy them clothes, shoes, and feed them with food that are even higher quality than the food YOU eat? The answer is a clear NO. Therefore, I am proud to propose.
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

I accept, though there is some ambiguity what the house is. Therefore, I will define it. [0] Since I am efficiently making the affirmative statement I will go first. The house, USA house of representatives will allow the consumption of dog meat. This is because of world hunger and food insecure. [1] "In 2012, 49 million Americans struggled with hunger, according to the USDA. That's 16 percent of the population, nearly double the then unemployment rate."[2] America and other countries could use another source of meat. The answer of course is dog meat. If you look at the statistics, many dogs are euthanized each year. [3] These dogs could instead be feeding the hungry. Now only that but it costs $2 billion dollar annually in the process. Considering the huge debt America of over 19 trillion dollars it is, the only logical choice is to turn these dogs into food. [4] Now some people may have some qualms about changing society. Nevertheless, justice trumps uncomfortable feelings. Just as gay marriages are approved by the supreme court. [5] Are we really going to let our uneasy feelings about eating dog meat stand in the way of justice? Nay, the America people will surely convince the House of represnitives to do the moral course of action and feed the hungry. Thanks for the debate, I look forward to your response. 0. http://www.house.gov... 1. http://www.wfp.org... 2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.statisticbrain.com... 4. http://www.brillig.com... 5. http://www.npr.org...
Population Checks should be implemented

Thank you for notifying me of my misassumptions in the previous argument. If you were to conduct population checks where certain members of the human race were rendered infertile, what would give you this right? I doubt that half the world would agree to this. If they were, they wouldn't be having children so frequently now. Also, there is no benefit in sacrificing or downright violating the rights of the current population in the interest of future generations. Even if you were to half the human population, whether of natural causes or not, the damage has already been done. There isn't a way to fix the ozone layer while still having humans inhabit the earth. There isn't a way to bring back extinct species. Limiting the population would only take a step backwards and halt the many advancements we are making as a human race. Many leaders in history who we now consider lucrative or plain mad thought that what they were doing would benefit the human race but look what happened....
Population Checks should be implemented

First of all I'd like to point out that the use of such inhumane techniques would be used to simply benefit future generations. Wouldn't you limit a respectable amount of the population so that future generations would survive? Also killing is not the only way of implementing population checks. Another way of potentially implementing population checks would be by introducing a bacteria that renders the reproductive systems of 1/2 of the human population sterile. Second of all I'd like to state that the human population would die of natural factors such as global warming and its immediate effects. It would be more beneficial to limit the human population rather than to risk the extinction of the human race. Finally I'd like to clarify your doubt upon the approval of the foreign governments. Fear would probably be the dominant force behind implementing such drastic measures. In this case, it would mean their population or the world. Thanks once again.
Population Checks should be implemented

I accept your challenge and will argue against your proposal of population checks First, I would like to point out the flaw in the case of the affirmative side. In his opening argument, 'Pro' likens earth to a host and its human inhabitants as a disease. Quoting from his argument: ' If the host survives, then the virus will has eventually been lessened or even killed. Either way the virus ends up dying.' Through this statement it is revealed that the affirmative side believes that the human population (A.K.A 'The Virus') will die whether the earth survives or not. By killing off the human population, what does earth become? An empty planet with no inhabitants, it loses its purpose. I argue that our population should not be thoughtlessly 'killed off' for the earth's benefit. I ask the affirmative, how do you suppose to implement this? Do you honestly believe that governments of developed countries will pass such an inhumane proposition? I highly doubt this!
Population Checks should be implemented

Although many may think of the affirmative side as sickly in mind, population checks should be implemented in order to assure the existence of the future generations of the human race and other animals. The human growth can be modeled as a extremely rapid exponential growth that has not stopped for decades. If the human race continues to grow at this rate, then Thomas Malthus may eventually prove right. In fact, one could possibly relate the human race to a virus and the earth as the host. Global warming can be referred to as a fever used to combat the virus. The only thing needed is a cold(such as an cosmic object, disease,war, etc.) in order to limit the virus's numbers. However, if the virus doesn't die then the host will die, ultimately inducing the death of the virus unless it spreads. If the host survives, then the virus will has eventually been lessened or even killed. Either way the virus ends up dying.
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of crimin

I still stand in firm negation of the resolution which states that the abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. Issues 1. My opponent failed to provide an argument for the second round 2. I would like to restate my contention that drug abusers are harmful to society's well-being. 3. I would like to restate my contention that punishment is needed to prevent crime. Thank You
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of crimin

I still stand in firm negation of the resolution which states that the abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. Issues 1.Public health should be defined as the general health of the community because by having all public healthy, you are ensuring a stable society. 2.My opponent's first contention states that drug abusers should go to instead of going to jail. How can this be? His value criterion is preserving justice. Thus meaning that justice should be preserved by doing what is right. If individuals are sent to rehab centers, then they are able to return to society much sooner than from jail. Resulting in the possibility of more crimes and the continued abuse of drugs. Making rehab pointless. However if one was to be sent to a jail, they would be lock up for about seven years. Meaning they are of the street for seven years, and not able to harm society's public health for seven years. On the matter of the cost of both, which would be more moral? Spending less money and potentially harming society's well-being or spending more money and ensuring that society isn't harmed? The later. This contention contradicts my opponents value of efficiency because by having these people being able to harm the public health, it is not doing the greater good for society. 3.My opponents second contention is that everyone has a choice wether to put illegal drugs in their body or not. This contention cannot be weighed in this debate because it does not support my opponents value of efficiency. He states in his second contention paragraph that his value is autonomy, however it is not. 4.My opponent's third contention is that when an addicted person goes to prison, he is prone to more violence than ever. My opponent says this results from getting high. By using a drug, under the influence or not, that person is not necessarily prone to violence. My opponent also says these fights start from a "play fight", but that means he is provoking violent actions. This contention does not uphold my opponent's criterion of preserving justice, because by saying that it is wrong to send a person to prison where it is more violent, he is suggesting he did no wrong. But by using drugs in the first place, he is doing him self no good. 5.I would like to restate my contention that drug abusers are harmful to society's well-being. 6.I would like to restate my contention that punishment is needed to prevent crime. 7.The use of ergo is not relevant in this context. Thank you.
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of crimin

I stand in firm negation of the resolution which states that the abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. Definitions: Public health: issues that affect the general health of the community on the whole The highest value in today's round is Social welfare. That is society's overall well-being. Social welfare is the most important value in today's round because having all of society being well is a moral obligation of the U.S. government. But that cannot happen unless the abuse of illegal drugs is treated as a matter of criminal justice. The best criterion to uphold this value is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is best explained by the fact that there is a punishment, then people will abstain from doing that which causes punishment. Utilitarianism upholds my value of social welfare because by having punishment to prevent actions that would be harmful to society. Now I will present two contentions to support my value and value criterion. My first contention is that drug abusers are harmful to society's well-being. If an individual is not sent to jail for abusing drugs, that person still has the potential to harm society's well-being because of the effects that abusing drugs has done to him or her. By sending these people to jail, it would get them off the streets and away from anywhere were they could cause harm. This contention supports my value of social welfare because by having these people away from where they can do harm, it is protecting society's well-being. My second contention is that punishment is needed to prevent crime. When people have the knowledge that there is a punishment for abusing drugs, it would make them refrain from abusing these illegal drugs. If people are already doing drugs and they then see the consequences of abusing drugs, it would show them that they should stop. If there was no punishment for abusing drugs, no one would be afraid to do that, but what happens is that the mindset of the people says that punishment is far worse than what the drugs actually do to the body. This contention supports my value of social welfare because by having the punishment, people are more likely to abstain from abusing drugs out of fear. Thank you
Can you romantically love more than one person at once

1. People are able to have multiple platonic-love relationships. 2. Therefore people are able to have multiple romantic love relationships. 3. If people practice polygamy, and get married for romantic love. Than people are out there that practice polygamy and get married under the conditions of romantic love. 4. Why would one of the world largest institutions, the catholic church, try to prevent something form happening, polygamy, if humans weren"t capable of having multiple romantic relationships, being one of the reason that humans do get married. Therefore people are able to have multiple romantic love relationships
Can you romantically love more than one person at once

1. My premise was that they are in romantically in love with their new partner while still feeling a confusing sense of love for their old partner although it is not romantic love. 2. Anything is possible if you can prove it. You are not trying to prove your premise to be true you are just restating it. 3. Are you romantically in love with two people at once currently or previously? If so, please explain how and why this is possible. 4. Again, giving flowers is merely a gesture that can represent numerous things such as, condolences, best wishes, speedy recovery, birthdays, graduations etc. Flowers do not imply romantic love all of the time. My father got me flowers for Valentines Days every year when I was a little girl and he most certainly never felt any type of love for me besides one that a parent feels for their child. 7. They may be romantically in love with their spouse and marry them and just be cheating on them out of lust but think they are in love because they cannot distinguish the two feelings properly. 8. I never stated that polygamy had to be an arranged marriage and people do not always marry for romantic love. People get married for all types of different reasons that I stated in premise 7 last round. Polygamy is a convoluted practice that has been around for many centuries and is influenced by many different reason throughout time, such as religion, status, and sex. All having nothing to do with romantic love. 12. Yes, I am aware that sex is necessary for procreation, although it has little to do with this argument. Just because having sex with someone may be romantic doesn"t not mean it is accompanied by romantic love. I am sure there has been millions of people in this world who had romantic one night stands with no feelings of love involved. 13. If you are going to use honesty as part of your premise please be clearer. Not sure how you are relating it to your argument. 14. Has it happened once in the world? If so, please elaborate, hypothetically or realistically. Therefore, people may be confused by too many feelings and they think they are in love with two people when they are not. Therefore, giving flowers is a gesture that can represent many things besides romantic love. Therefore, marriage does not indicate romantic love. Therefore, sex does not indicate romantic love.
Can you romantically love more than one person at once

1. Just because they are not romantically in love with a new person doesn"t mean that one person cant romantically be in love with two people at once. 2. There could be a scenario where a person was romantically in love with one person and found a new person that they are in romantically in love with too. 3. Because I could be romantically in love with two people and know how exactly how I feel. 4 and 5. But it can be apart of being romantically in love. For example on valentines day the number one item men give to people that they are romantically in love with are flowers. Therefore if a man gives a women flowers on valentines day, that is a family member, that odds are that he is romantically in love with that person. 7. Marriage by not be the end all indicator. But one could get married be romantically in love with them, and have someone on the side they are romantically in love with too. 8. Polygamy is not have to be an arranged marriage. Therefore why would they just marry someone for know reason. Romantic love is why someone gets married. 12. Sex can be for procreation. Romantically is the act of expressing love towards another. Sex doesn"t have to be it. Numerous things can be a sign of romantic love. 13. I was arguing your point, you were using honestly in your point. I was disagreeing with you point for round 1 14. It can happen. People can be romantically in love with more than one person at once. If it happen once in the world, than It can happen again. Might be rare but can happen. Therefore it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
Can you romantically love more than one person at once

1. Its not that their feelings are gone for their current partner, just a different kind of comfortable love that can be confused with romantic love. Though after realizing they are romantically in love with their new partner they will see how they do not romantically love their current partner the same way anymore. 3. Please explain why you think my premise is invalid. 4 & 5. Sending flowers has little to nothing to do with romantically loving 2 people at once. Please elaborate or dismiss this premise all together. 7. Yes, while people who get married are typically in love, sometimes they are not. Such as in cases of an arranged marriage or if people get married for the wrong reasons such as an unexpected pregnancy or money. Whether they are in a monogamous marriage or a polygamous marriage, marriage does not have an influence on if someone is capable of loving more than one person at the same time. 8. Men and society care about a disproportioned ratio because if there is 5 woman for every 1 man, there is going to be a lot of men with no woman. That can cause a major upset for a society. Polygamy also does not prove that someone can romantically love two people at once. 12. You just stated, agreeing with me, that the sex would purely be for procreation reasons, not because of romantic love. If you are going to continue on to say that it in fact doesn"t mean that they do not romantically love this other person then you need to prove why. You have contradicted yourself. 13. It is true that people don"t always need to be honest, but how does that help your point in one person being able to love more than one person at once? 14. Platonic love is less complex, intense, and less work. That"s why it is acceptable and understood why people have multiple friends and family members that they claim they love. You rarely hear people saying they have two boyfriends or girlfriends whom he/she both romantically loves because it is impossible. Therefore, you may actually love two people at the same time but not romantic love. Therefore, people who are married are not always in love. Therefore, Polygamy has no impact on romantically loving two people at once. Therefore, procreation purposes have nothing to do with romantic love.
Can you romantically love more than one person at once

Rebuttal of Cons 1. IF they don"t know that their feelings are gone how do they know for certain that they are not in fact romantically in love with two or more people at once. 2. Agree. 3. Invalid premise. Not every one that thinks they are romantically in love with two people are emotionally confused. 4 and 5. No it doesn"t meant that you romantically love them, but just because one sends flowers to their mother or sister it doesn"t mean that they cant romantically love more than one person at once. Agree with your 6 Agree with 10. 7. Usually people in marriage are romantically in love 8- disagree. Why would they care if there was a lopsided ratio. 12- Sex for procreation. But that doesn"t mean that a person cant romantically love more than one person at once. 13. People don"t have to be honest but can still love more than one person at once 14. If one could platonic love more that one person at once, why couldn"t you be capable of romantically loving more than one person at once. Controversial: Premises 1
Can you romantically love more than one person at once

1. It is possible to romantically love more than one person. 2. Love is deep feeling of affection towards another. 3. Romantically is the act of expressing love towards another. 4. Humans are capable of expressing love towards more than one person at a time, for example it is possible for one to bring flowers to multiple loved ones in one day. 5. Bring flowers could be considered an act of expressing love. 6. Sex can be considered an act of love. 7. Many cultures practice polygamy. 8. The idea of loving only one person is made up by religious organization in an effort stop polygamy, why would religious organizations try to stop something that was not happening, hence loving more than one person is possible and present in human culture 9. We are mammals that evolved from less advanced kind. 10. The purpose of animals, including mammals, is survival of the fittest, which is to pass on ones genes to the next generation as many times as possible, creating a better opportunity for survival of one"s genes. 11. If humans evolved to only love on person it would decrease the chance for ones genes to survive. 12. Example, if you loved one person who could not bear children, than you chance of passing on your genes is zero. 13. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once, since religious organization are trying to stop it from occurring, why would they stop something that is not happening. Non-controversial premises Premise 2 and Premise 3 because they are definitions. Premise 5 because it is an act that is considered expressing love Premise 9 - scientific definition Premise 10 " scientific definition Controversial Premises Premise 1 " view of argument Premise 4 " opinion Premise 6 " opinion that can be argued Premise 7 " not concrete definition Premise 8 " opinion on subject matter Premise 11 " conclusion to previous premises Premise 12 " example Premise 13 " conclusion