BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals

Since the title of this debate does not confer any position, I will derive from his opening argument that he is advocating animal rights; which basically makes up PETA. The four core issues he addresses, and what PETA confronts, are factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. However, I being Con, argue that animal rights should not be advocated, but instead animal welfare. I am in accordance with most of the issues PETA addresses, but to a limited extent. I agree that ethical issues in factory farming, fur farming, and animals in entertainment are alarming, but I negate the proposition that they should be completely done with; that animals should has as much rights as humans. We should still be able to have the three said practices, but the welfare of the animals in each of them should be increased. To consider that animals are on the same moral threshold as humans is ludicrous, as we have moral judgment and interests. "Apropos animal testing, what a deplorable procedure a vivisection is. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U. S. " On the issue of animal testing, while I will argue for some leniency on the suffering of animals, make it clear that animal testing contributes to 95% of our biomedical research. Virtually every medical advancement in the 20th century has been derived from animal testing. Some of the advancements are as follow: Penicillin, Blood transfusions, tuberculosis medicine, meningitis vaccine, kidney transplants, breast cancer treatments, asthma inhalers, polio vaccine, insulin for diabetics, and deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. These few out of the very many medical advancements from animal testing have been discovered through animal testing. I do not think I even have to state how many human lives this has saved.
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals is an organization that stands for the rights of animals. Its main emphasis is to abolish factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Also, it campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, abuse of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, bull fighting and consumption of meet. These practices, that P.E.T.A. works to eliminate, are cruel. In factory farming, animals are slaughtered by the masses. In fur farming, an animal is literally stripped of its skin, so that its coat can become a new fashion vogue for humans. Apropos animal testing, what a deplorable procedure a vivisection is. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. I could easily continue to elucidate the cruelties in the other issues the organization addresses. These poor animals can not resist, on their own, the fate imposed on them by humans. That is why I deem that P.E.T.A. champions a worthy cause, representing animals that don't have a voice in our society.
A debate on a Supreme Court Case

Jumping right into it: You speak of a commentator that was not unlike the oracle of Delphi in his power to know all things. Unfortunately, you didn't provide a source, let alone a name, so there's really no proof that this person existed. My point stands then about not ignoring parts of the Constitution stands then. "The militias of that time were operating separate from the government, because it was the government they were fighting against. They were not state militias." The minutemen were militias of the Massachusetts bay Colony. Its a fact. "In the British colony of Massachusetts Bay, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 30 were required to participate in their local militia. As early as 1645 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, some men were selected from the general ranks of town-based "training bands" to be ready for rapid deployment. Men so selected were designated as minutemen." -Gross [author name] Yeah I have to stop now because I want to actually sleep/ unfair to refute everything without opponent's response. I believe I won because of my point on the fact that they wouldn't want an un-natural writing to be in the Constitution, that armaments were regulated back then and so should still be allowed to reasonably today. Certainly its reasonable to limit weapons in a totally urban area, while still providing for other means of more effective self defense. I've shown with previous Supreme Court cases and quotes from notables that my position is more sensible. Thank you and good night.
A debate on a Supreme Court Case

"What? No. You ignore reality. It was explained by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison that no part of the Constitution is to be ignored. You're advocating the ignorance of part of the amendment." What? No. You ignore reading comprehension skills. Volokh shows us what the amendment means, and the purpose of the first clause. "Erm, state's militias comprised of citizens won the Revolutionary war. It wasn't just a bunch of 'dudes with guns' as previously described by myself. The 13 states were well aware that the 'dudes with guns' strategy is a terrible one, and so they designed laws to regulate their militias. A regulation of said militia could include not allowing handguns." Erm... no. Concord, Lexington, ever heard of them? "1. Less than half of the framers had any legal experience. 2. So you're suggesting that the Framers would write the constitution in an un-natural way, meaning that we should read it un-naturally to how words meant back then?" 1. James Madison wrote it. He was a lawyer. 2. No...check your history (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "Except for the fact that I showed a different meaning being used in the Declaration of Independence, which occurred a good 60 years after your common law case." See the link above. "Keeping arms which may be regulated by the states as part of states having a well-regulated militia." False, there is no basis for such a statement. "Its not a burglar if he or she shoots you. I wouldn't recommend trying to pull a gun on someone that is right next to you anyway. But enough about macabre stuff. Back to the debate." Whatever. All I'm saying is that the trigger lock inhibits your ability to defend yourself. "This has nothing to do with the case of DC v. Heller anymore." It does. What I'm saying is that the law abiding citizen who keeps the gun locked will be endangered if an exceptional circumstance occurs. "Again, you are advocating the idea that the best way to read the constitution would be in an un-natural format. And you have no proof of anyone saying 'oh yeah, we wrote it like that because we didn't really mean the first part.'" The phrasing was natural at the time. People who wanted to sound smart used it. "Uhhh. Yeah. Thomas Jefferson was in France during the entirety of the Constitutional Convention. So This is completely false. You'd also need to prove that Pennslyvania and Massachusetts somehow didn't have enough clout." Obviously I was suffering intense muscle spasms when I wrote Thomas Jefferson. I meant James Madison, who was equally influential. "Most convenient for criminals that is. My facts have shown that handguns are in high frequency usage by those who wish to do another harm. Lets also not forget about the harrowing statistics regarding domestic violence and suicide when a handgun is in the home. If needed, I will present them." The fact that they are very commonly used by people in general awards them constitutional protection. "The courts have also ruled that a weapon in common usage by criminals can and should be banned." Right now, or at least at the time of the Heller case, common law protected handguns.
A debate on a Supreme Court Case

Argh. I'm left with about 13 minutes to respond, so it'll be brief. Next round will be amazing. "No, it's not, there is no basis for that statement." Other than the words of the second amendment, and the context of its writing, which we both agree on. "What? No. You ignore the Volokh card." What? No. You ignore reality. It was explained by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison that no part of the Constitution is to be ignored. You're advocating the ignorance of part of the amendment. "But he is a people. The amendment says people, not "states" or "militias." The people can keep and bear arms." The amendment says that people can keep arms for state militias. Heller wasn't in a state militia. "Citizen's militias won the Revolutionary War, and besides, the people need weapons, that's why we need the Second Amendment." Erm, state's militias comprised of citizens won the Revolutionary war. It wasn't just a bunch of 'dudes with guns' as previously described by myself. The 13 states were well aware that the 'dudes with guns' strategy is a terrible one, and so they designed laws to regulate their militias. A regulation of said militia could include not allowing handguns. Part 2 of statement: I'm not arguing the necessity of the 2nd amendment, I'm arguing that the Supreme Court should have ruled for DC. "Ahh, but Black, the famous jurist, and publisher of Black's Law Dictionary defined "bear arms" as to have weapons, and as the framers were lawyers it is likely that this would be their legalese definition, and the one that would be used in say a law, or huh, the second amendment. " 1. Less than half of the framers had any legal experience. 2. So you're suggesting that the Framers would write the constitution in an un-natural way, meaning that we should read it un-naturally to how words meant back then? "it is safe to say that this is their meaning. " Except for the fact that I showed a different meaning being used in the Declaration of Independence, which occurred a good 60 years after your common law case. ""keep...arms"" Keeping arms which may be regulated by the states as part of states having a well-regulated militia. "And in that minute, you can be shot by the burglar." Its not a burglar if he or she shoots you. I wouldn't recommend trying to pull a gun on someone that is right next to you anyway. But enough about macabre stuff. Back to the debate. Oh snap, I have 50 seconds left. I will continue in comments section.
the quest for absolute peace

my opponent asked me to prove that god did not solve all his problem peacefully so below i have listed a few examples 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 32:41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. 32:42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. i am sticking to my last answer and hope pro sees the eror of his ways
the quest for absolute peace

Op. Arguments: 1. Peace = Boredom Con asserts that peace means no more "absolute peace then one would not be able to watch or play anything violent" which is untrue until Con explains the connection but if true we have a good point! With absolute peace children instead of being entertained by violence would be entertained by better things. This would decrease many common problems: "The impact of violent video games are still being determined – that such titles can have a greater impact on those predisposed to becoming easily angry / upset and who lack empathy probably shouldn't’t be surprising – and it is an issue that the video games industry will constantly have to face as more and more attention is put into making sure that (for instance) bodily fluids have the correct dynamics as they spurt through the limbs you’ve just cut off and that the real-time blood splatter looks appropriate. " . http://unsubject.wordpress.com... 2. All problems can't be solved by peace Examples or invalid. Also, you need to prove God and his intentions for this to fly: "God the most powerful being in the world could not solve all his problem peacefully, what gives humans the idea we can" 3. Jobs My opponent has added nothing new concerning this and so my refutation presented in round 1 stands and needs not to be altered. My Arguments: Unaddressed.
the quest for absolute peace

Yes but you can not solve all problems peacefully death will always be part of the equation. Not only this but if there were absolute peace then one would not be able to watch or play anything violent. God the most powerful being in the world could not solve all his problem peacefully, what gives humans the idea we can. But the other problem lies fancily, without violence anyone working in the military and many in law enforcement would be out of a job. If you are willing to put thousands out of jobs and thing god is just made up will then absolute peace seams reasonable
the quest for absolute peace

Note: I was challenged to this and so don't be mad on me for debating a novice; I'm out of "noobsnipping" business and into "not wasting my time for the most part" business. =========================================================================== Op. Arguments: 1. Peace = Boredom This needs support. Even if he did support this argument then it would still be unpersuasive. Why? Well, conflict is not the only form of entertainment and so this: Boredom - Conflict = Fun Can replace this: Boredom - PS3 = Fun 2. Peace = Less Jobs Nope. In war, factories and other productive buildings are bombed and so unemployment is high. In peaceful times there are jobs, a soldier doesn't have to be a soldier and no factories suffer bombardment. My Arguments: 1. Pain and death Conflict causes unnecessary pain and war kills many people while we could alternatively solve our problems harmlessly.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

But it is IRRELEVANT that the 9/11 bombings were not the ignition of the war because they were. IT was that little push they needed so that they can have reasons to attack Iraq. Either way there decision resulted in all negative outcomes every way possible. Due to the fact that we are in debt to other countries and our economy is low. They did act out of anger because there are a lot of ways they could've avoided it. They could have spoke to Iraq demanding a treaty or any other way to put an end to the war without resulting the U.S to be effective negatively in any way possible. So for you to say that the U.S did not act out of anger is completely irrelevant because they had a lot of other options they could have taken so that they can avoid warfare. The emotion that had to do with the invasion of Iraq was strictly anger because it resulted in unexpected consequences and that is what anger leads to that is why anger defies all emotions.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT the U.S. went to war with Iraq to avenge the victims death's for 9/11. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it was believed by the Bush Administration that there were weapons of mass destruction. It was later shown that there was no weapons of mass destruction. So in order to cover up their "mess" the U.S. decided to shift their attention to bringing democracy to Iraq which proved to be fatal. The U.S. did not act out of anger but rather wanting to protect the United States from further attacks. The government is suppose to protect the people. No emotions had to do with the invasion of Iraq other than making sure that the United States was out of harm's way.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

That is IRRELEVANT because the case proves that the reason to why she killed herself was because she couldn't overcome bullying by anger. She even left a note stating why she killed herself and also there was evidence found that backed up this statement as well. Such as Facebook posts and text messages that were found. So when it comes to this case anger was not a good moral motivator because it motivated her to do the wrong thing by taking a permanent way out of the situation and that was by death. Another case that had the same outcome was America how they went into ware with Iraq. They went to war out of anger to avenge the lives the terrorists took for bombing 9/11. The result out of there anger put us millions and trillions in debt and it made the economy horrible. IF the U.S didnt act on such anger our society would of been a better one because we would have money and a better economy. So in these two cases are evidence that proves anger is not and will not be a good moral motivator.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT this girl in Florida had actually killed herself because she was angry that she was overweight. No one will know except for that girl for why she committed suicide. She may have had some other problems in her life that she could not have deal with maturely enough. If people don't do anything regardless of bad or good ways to lose weight, its a lose-lose situation for them. Since they are overweight they have to probably take pills for cholesterol or high blood sugar just to keep it down. This costs a lot of money if they take it on a daily basis. Wouldn't someone rather try to lose weight so they can avoid all of these additional expenses. Cause the bill will continuously add up and there will be future problems/complications they may have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT over weight people get angry the right way because in some cases people who believe there overweight will do unhealthy things to lose weight and some will also commit suicide. So on certain matters there is more bad then good because there are so many bad ways to lose weight and to escape the over weightiness. So in this case it is kind of tough for me to agree with you. Also its like this case that a girl in Florida jumped to her death because she was getting picked on. Instead of using anger in a positive way to overcome the bullies she used that anger to escape the bullies permanently. So in this case anger is viewed as a uncontrollable emotion because no one can control it. If anger can be controlled it should be renamed because it is viewed as something that cannot be controlled. So once someone has omitted that they can control it it is not anger. There fore anger can only bring about negative outcomes because it is uncontrollable.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

According to Aristotle anger is a good thing as long as it is for the right things, people, etc. Lets say that an overweight person becomes angry whenever they look into the mirror because he or she is fat. They understand that it may be a problem for their health and may potentially have to deal with high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. So the anger they have can be used as a motivation to get healthy by eating right and losing weight by exercising. In this scenario, anger can be a good moral motivation.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy

You know, I WOULD respond to his R3... but intuition tells me what I'd say would be against the terms of service of this site. On top of that, I know that it's against the rules of debate since I can't bring up any new arguments - i mean, logical fallacies, in the last round. Well, I gave him a chance to prove his belief that anime is tentacle rape, and I gave him a multitude of choices. He very clearly chose not to carry through with his claim, whereas my lunaticity hasn't been proven in any way. If you want to judge based on who's a better person, I still win because I mast****** to girls that don't exist while he carries out mass genocides around the world; he obviously has many more personality flaws. But I'd rather you not do that. Instead, look to the nonfallacious arguments that we have presented. He has none, and I have one. Extend my R1. He has not met the burden of proof, therefore he loses the debate. Vote PRO. Ohyeah. There is no way in hell that Lucky Star is tentacle rape.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy

Well, I did as my opponent requested and took the test. I looked up IQ test on Facebook, since he didn't specify any test in particular. The one I took says I'm a 138, but I assume it's higher since I waited out the five or so minutes near the end. Forgot that time factored into an IQ test. I believe it was higher before, as I scored 150 on a test for 13 year olds when I was 12. As for the other thing he said about me, I find it really interesting how he can link CC (the girl in my avatar) or Code Geass (anime that CC is from) to tentacle rape. But let's assume he's right for a moment. You still vote for me because people that say "iamalwaysright" turn out to be Zedong's, Hitler's and Stalin's, and I believe the harms of mass genocide outweigh pictures for people to mast****** to. But before that level, please realize that both the IQ and Anime points that my opponent bring up are still only examples of what Ad Hominem is. As you can see, all he is doing is attempting to show you how certain parts of me are "bad", and not attacking the case that I presented in R1. He still has not proven in any way how Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy, so therefore he still cannot win. Oh yeah. Just to be fair, I will give my opponent a chance to prove that what I watch are linked to tentacle rape. The following is every anime series that I have ever watched. If he can prove that ANY of these anime explicitly support tentacle rape, then I forfeit the debate. Bamboo Blade Clannad Claymore Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 Death Note Eureka 7 Full Metal Alchemist Full Metal Panic! Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu Full Metal Panic: The Second Raid Genesis of Aquarion Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex 2nd GIG Gundam 00 Gundam SD Ichigo 100% Infinite Ryvius Karas Lucky Star The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya Neon Genesis Evangelion Ouran High School Host Club Prince of Tennis Seto no Hanayome Tsubasa Chronicle Of course, he's still going to have to break the other layers I have in the debate. He's going to have to prove that Ad Hominem isn't a logical fallacy to begin with in order for his attacks on my IQ and the anime I watch to have any effect. Arigato gozaimasu. Ja, ne?
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy

Before I go any further, I would like to ask my opponent what his IQ is. From his avatar, I can see that he is a fan of Japanese anime which makes me question his credibility or even his sanity. Why? Well, I don't need to really elaborate on that. Look up anime or even Japanese culture on the internet and you'll be greeted with sick, gruesome things and concepts such as "tentacle rape" and other things that I do not even want to talk about. I think from that alone it is clear that my opponent lacks the credibility to be participating in this argument and would probably be better suited to being contained somewhere such as a mental health facility rather than here on the internet. But in any case, I may be mistaken so if you could please tell me what your IQ is and prove your credibility (and reason anyone should take anything you are saying without a grain of salt), I will gladly continue this debate further.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy

Every example that my opponent provided in his R1 were pretty much Ad Hominem's all over. He isn't proving how Ad Hominem isn't a logical fallacy; he's just giving examples of what an Ad Hominem is: "since source X has problems Y and Z, we cannot trust what source X says" - which is almost the same definition provided by Wikipedia. However, this does not in any way show how Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy. Because it is generally accepted that Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy and also because he made the claim that Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy, my opponent has the burden of proof to show that it is not a logical fallacy.