BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

"Fictional characters in a novel do not exist, the "idea" of the fictional characters exists as it was created by the characters author and can be conveyed through communication(visual in movies or through reasoning and imagery in text)" Con Now your understanding. The idea of fictional characters, ghosts, elves, orcs, tolls, justice and morality exists. "But justice and morality do exist not as ideas as well. The implementation of justice by our society(not perfect but striving for it) is what creates justice, just as the "thought" of charity exists in your mind but does not exist itself until you give the charity money goods or service." Con This is where I disagree. Acting upon the idea of an elf or troll does not make the elf or troll exist. Jumping around trees like an elf does not make an elf exist. Just as giving money to poor people does not make charity exist. Besides by that logic stealing from poor people would make charity cease to exist. Con seem to think acting out the idea of charity or justice makes charity or justice exist. Then, I present the opposite. That performing the opposite of charity makes charity not exist. Just as injustice would make justice not exist. Since there is so many injustices in this world, I present that justice does not exist.
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

Fictional characters in a novel do not exist, the "idea" of the fictional characters exists as it was created by the characters author and can be conveyed through communication(visual in movies or through reasoning and imagery in text) The "Idea" of morality and justice certainly exist that cannot be debated barring the philosophical arugement "does an idea exist" (We will assume the low entropy of the brainwaves forming and idea or thought does in deed make the "idea" of something exist as well as the fact that that idea can be transferred) So that only leaves do they exist in reality? We have "Courts of justice", relatives of victims saying quotes such as "Justice has been done, or has not been done" We have a "Justice" Department entirely devoted to turning the "Idea" of justice into practice. Again I Believe you meant to say "justice and morality are idealist creations by man and not inherent in the universe, therefor animal cruelty is justified" however this is not what you stated you are arguing and not what I am burdened with refuting. The morals and justice constructs are idea's of sentient thought, which makes the idea of justice and morality exist immediately upon creation. But justice and morality do exist not as ideas as well. The implementation of justice by our society(not perfect but striving for it) is what creates justice, just as the "thought" of charity exists in your mind but does not exist itself until you give the charity money goods or service.
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

What about fictional characters in novels? They aren't real, they don't exist. How is justice and morality different than fictional characters? "A ghost is an object, therefor the absence of such object automatically implies non existence. Morality and justice are non objects, and exist just as readily as happiness, self esteem, respect, discipline, integrity, honor, and courage." Con Happiness can be measured by dopamine receptors and chemicals in the brain. What proof do you have that courage exists? Justice and morality are abstract constructs with no bearing in reality. "CEOs with ridiculous amounts of money is very subjective, you are implying this is unjust which is flately wrong, being a rich ceo does not necessitate injustice bill gates is a ceo who invented one of the most useful devices known to main, and his reward for doing so can very readily be argues as "just". Here in America many believe allowing people to strive to make it to the top is a just system." Con Have you seen the tactics Microsoft has used? They were using monopolistic policies. Like forcing computer manufacturers to install Microsoft's programs. Also, there is Linux, a free operating system. Think Ubuntu. Remember there was Mac machines too. I don't think the world would have suffered a great loss if Bill Gates never invented Windows. "(CBS/AP) - Microsoft's co-founder and Chairman Bill Gates is scheduled to take the stand today in Salt Lake City to testify in a lawsuit filed by software company Novell. " Cbsnews " Microsoft Ruled a Monopoly / Court finds firm abused its power" sfgate.com If justice exists what about the many holocausts? http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.ubuntu.com... https://www.apple.com...
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

A ghost is an object, therefor the absence of such object automatically implies non existence. Morality and justice are non objects, and exist just as readily as happiness, self esteem, respect, discipline, integrity, honor, and courage. To answer your questions of species and ceos is pretty simple: Justice and Morality are determined, imposed and brought to existence by sentient life that chooses to do so not inherently by the universe itself. This requires high level thought and as such only few species such as humans strive to imposed justice or morality in any sense of the word, preventing species extinction would require one species to comprehend extinction, forecast it, and takes steps to stop it(which we ourselves have only recently done in the time span of species, we have many species on endangered lists or bred in captivity to keep the species alive best we can) CEOs with ridiculous amounts of money is very subjective, you are implying this is unjust which is flately wrong, being a rich ceo does not necessitate injustice bill gates is a ceo who invented one of the most useful devices known to main, and his reward for doing so can very readily be argues as "just". Here in America many believe allowing people to strive to make it to the top is a just system.
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

" : to have actual being : to be real : to continue to be or to live " merriam-webster.com Justice nor morality doesn't exist just as ghosts don't exist. People can draw pictures of ghosts. They can talk a lot about ghosts, that doesn't mean they exist or are real. You can draw pictures of characters within a fictional novel. That doesn't mean they exist. Let's put this another way. If justice really existed how come some many species are going extinct? How come CEOs have ridiculous amounts of money? Nay, morality nor justice exist. Its just order. Idealistic crowd pleasing. The sooner we realize the brutal realities of life the sooner we can create better order on our planet. It is chaotic to exterminate species after species. The environmental ramifications are unknowable. If humans are going to remain in power we need to stop this chaos. As long as we cling to non-existent ideologies we are blind to the real threat. Power is what allows us to remain in power. If we continue to pollute the Earth arbitrarily pollution will make us weak. Inferior species must be protected in order for us to survive. We want to believe that there is fluffy ideologies like justice and morality. Yet, they don't exist. We need to seek reality. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

Let's break down your argument "There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified." "There is no justice nor morality" You are implying that justice and morality do not exist. I refute this argument, the mere dictionary definition of "justice" and "morality", common knowledge of the concepts, and the application of legal systems in the world to try to meet these constructs daily shows that justice and morality both exist, even if they are just man made ideas and constructs. Asking a person what justice or morality is would invoke the same or similar idea in all those you ask, meaning what justice and morality IS can be defined and tought to others, making it an idea and notion that does indeed almost irrefutably exist. I believe you meant "justice and morality are idealist creations by man and not inherent in the universe, therefor animal cruelty is justified" however this is not what you stated you are arguing and not what I am burdened with refuting.
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

Animals are inferior and humans are superior beings. Humans can create and use weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately there is no justice. There is no mercy for the weak. Humans have conquered the Earth. Might makes right. "The weak will perish." startrek.com "Back in 2006 ocean scientists published an alarming report on the crisis ocean fish face. They released data showing that 90% of fish and other ocean life have perished in the last 100 years. 18% of ocean species have been reduced in number by more than 90% with 7% of fish species now extinct." http://russgeorge.net... "Every five minutes humans kill off a species." animalethics.org "Feral cats behind extinction of unique Aussie mammals" http://phys.org... Just as the dodo bird has gone extinct. Weak species will become extinct. This is the harshness of reality. Justice and morality are illusions. Constructs made by man. Instead, we have order. The order that the strong take from the weak. Viking raiders invading Europe. Mega conglomerates taking over smaller businesses. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Laws and order are created so the rich and powerful stay in power. Think politicians voting for their selves. The idea of justice was created by the rich and powerful to maintain order and repress the peasantry. Same goes with morality. Want to get rid of a troublemaker? Invent some moral law and then execute the person for breaking the bias law. People want a reason or rationalization for actions, even if they don't make sense. This is the way I perceive the world. I may be wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing to stop aliens with advanced technology killing all species on the third rock from the sun for entertainment purposes. Power and order are the only values. It is the duty of the powerful to take from the weak ensuring order. Therefore, animal cruelty in all forms is justified. Think wild chimpanzees, with an alpha ape. The strong tribes take over the territory of the weak. Just as the powerful species cause inferior species to go extinct. http://www.startrek.com... http://russgeorge.net... http://www.animalethics.org.uk... http://phys.org...
Humanities vs STEM

I will argue that humanities disciplines are not better, or more specifically more important than STEM. If importance is not the point you are trying to argue, let me know and I can readdress your concerns in Round 2. I think the points that you make are valid, but I would interpret them in a different way. Yes, every day you read something, and yes, every day you deal with people. That means that you get plenty of experience building up these skills outside of the classroom, leaving more time in the classroom for STEM subjects. You know what you don't do every day? Rebuild a computer. Design a robot. Develop a cure for a disease. These are all things that are necessary for humanity to continue down the path it has laid out for itself, and to continue to grow as a society. We need humanitarians; of that there is no doubt. But if the people we had in these fields had a background in STEM subjects as well, we would have more innovation in the fields as well (1). That isn't to say that people without a background in STEM subjects can't be innovative, but having a broader set of knowledge will lead to a more complete idea of the "big picture" and how the disciplines would be able to work together more effectively. For the individual, I also believe that STEM disciplines are necessary. There are an increasing number of STEM jobs available. From 2000-2010, the number of STEM jobs increased by 7.9%, where non-STEM jobs only increased by 2.6%. It is also estimated that the number of STEM jobs will continue to rise at an increased rate going forward, and potentially by twice the 2000-2010 rate going forward (2). I think these statistics are a compelling reason to go into the STEM fields, regardless of the effects on the country/world. In order to address your point directly, I would need more information on the exact subjects or fields you are referring to, or a clarification that you do just mean all humanities disciplines are better than all STEM disciplines. I only ask because you mention that humanities are better because you read and deal with people every day, but mentioned that social studies is the study of people and cultures. I would argue that much of what you learn in cultural studies (world religions, geography, world history) is not information you would need for the every day interactions you speak of. Thank you for bringing up an interesting topic to discuss, and good luck! Source: (1): . https://www.bebr.ufl.edu... (2): . http://2010-2014.commerce.gov...
Humanities vs STEM

I am going to argue that Humanities is better than STEM! Humanities is a combination of Language Arts and Social Studies. Language arts is reading and writing. Social studies is the study of people and cultures. What 2 things do you do every single day? You read and you deal with people. You cannot go get through a day without having done either. When you ride down the road you read the signs on restuaurants; McDonalds, Subway, etc.. When you get up in the morning you speak to your mom, dad, husband, wife. People are in your life as much as print. For this reason; humanities is a more essential part of your learning and school day.
When does human life begin?? I posit at conception.

Ok. I fully agree with you that human beings are developing, and that is a process that goes on well being conception, birth, the childhood years, etc. I believe that humans are always developing up to the moment of death. Obviously, there are diseases/illnesses that can change that (such as dementia/Alzheimer's), but otherwise we are always developing and changing. Even as we age and our bodies begin to weaken, we as people still develop.However, referring to Merriam Webster for the definition of a human being is getting off track with respect to my original statement which "Human life begins at conception and no valid argument can be made to the contrary". I'm specifically referring to when the process begins, NOT the definition of human being.So, again, I posit that the moment human life begins to develop is conception for the same reasons I've cited before. The resulting zygote of an egg that's been fertilized by sperm has DNA that is specific to human beings and uniquely different than either parent. Without conception a human being can never begin to develop. If another moment exists other than conception that you can propose as a starting point I'd be open minded to hearing it.
When does human life begin?? I posit at conception.

Ok, so from my understanding of your explanation is that life, human life specifically, begins when the sperm cell fuses with the egg cell to form a zygote. But let's cover the topic of conception as that is a broad term for the multiple processes involved. From your description, a human forms at the specific moment of the production of the zygote. "At this moment, a human being is created and begins developing." This statement is false, because a human being is defined as, according to Merriam-Webster "a man, woman or a child". The zygote certainly has the potential to develop into a human being, however a human being is not created at that moment, but simply a cell that has the potential to develop into a human being. Now, we have to tread carefully when deciding whether or not a zygote classifies as a human life. A zygote has the potential to become a human being an a human life as stated by the US National Library Of Medicine and Institute of Health, " A zygote is capable of splitting to give rise to identical twins. Since the zygote cannot be identical with either human being it will become, it cannot already be a human being." Although it has the full potential of later developing into a full human life and a human being, at the stage you indicated, I believe it is not. It simply has various characteristics which include some of homo sapiens (humans), however it would not be enough to then characterize fully as human. Feel free to clarify what you have said to engage fully. Now that we have covered that, which we can go back to for clarification, let's move on. I believe that life does not happen at any particular moment, but is rather a continuous process which cannot be squeezed into one event, as stated by the Bioethics Defend Fund, "The fact that life is truly a continuum further complicates the question of when a new life commences. Most human beings are produced from the union of two pre existing cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefi- nitely to the beginning of all life." This would support the notion that human life is not specifically commenced at one moment, but rather it is through countless processes that result in a human being and it cannot be singled into a particular event. This seems to be the source of a lot of confusion as a human life, as I have said, is not due to any one event, but is rather a continuous process that later results in the creation of a human being.
When does human life begin?? I posit at conception.

Ok, fair enough. This is not simply a rhetorical question but one that needs an answer. The perfect example is abortion. If life begins at conception then abortion is the intentional taking of human life. At the moment of conception, several things happen. The sperm no longer resembles sperm and the egg no longer resembles an egg. The zygote that's produced has DNA that is specifically human and distinctly different than the DNA of the mother or father. At this moment, a human being is created and begins developing. So, the fetus is unquestionably a developing human being.So, my question wasn't rhetorical but, once answered, a building point for further debate that's not in the scope of this debate.
When does human life begin?? I posit at conception.

Life, most people, begins at conception. With humans it is somewhat blurred and many tend to disagree and claim that life does not. But that is open to debate, usually. The question is, why are you asking? I assume it is a rhetorical question which you used, but simply saying there is no argument that refutes your statement and subsequently posting as such to a website that is meant to include moot topics is not productive. So to get the parameters out of the way, please explain your premise to have a fruitful debate. There may be aspects that we can clash on, but for the most part, I feel we will have a lot of common ground.
Should the penny be kept in US currency

If we take away the penny (and the nickel), we will be back at 1947. This was shortly after the Great Depression ended, and if we don't have smaller coins (the lack of small coins prevented us from getting out of this terrible event), a whole new Great Depression could appear. That's not just a ripple, that is throwing us seventy years behind the rest of the world, and it will be difficult to get out of that. We may have to devote to rounding. $2 bills are to $20 bills, as $1 bills are to $10 bills, same with $5 to $50, and $10 to $100. The two dollar bill helps our economy as much as a twenty dollar bill, which is why we are coming towards it. The two dollar bill will boost, and all taking away the penny can do is throw us behind the rest of the world. This will cause our taxes to be lowered, which means less money on international relationships, which means, debt that can't be paid off, lack of military. These things will make the US vulnerable to the outside forces. Good luck!
Should the penny be kept in US currency

Let me make this clear. I said an economic breakdown HERE, meaning the U.S. The US is much more capable of recovering from a breakdown than the Soviet Union. Back on topic, my closing argument is that the penny is outdated. The time has come for it to be removed, naturally or by force. New forms of currency, like the $2 bill are becoming more and more widespread. A penny is just something that you throw on the ground, forget about. The making of the penny should be stopped, although to prevent an economic breakdown it should remain as a legitimate form of payment, usin the penny's already in circulation of the U.S.
Should the penny be kept in US currency

Many economic breakdowns have resulted in the collapse of countries. My opponent clearly said we could get over it however may I argue that the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers in the world at that time, experienced an economic collapse. This crisis was one of the key factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russia. Next comes lack of military. Any "ripple in the world of money" can cause a serious impact on the military. As I speak the US is in war with ISIL, and having an economic crisis will not benefit us as all. The penny also should not be taken from the US currency because, as you said, we might have to resort to credit cards, but remember this. Many shops don't accept credit cards, the shops will experience a downfall in what they can do, and many places will go out of business, causing more and more to do the same.
Fortnite May Possibly Be Better (read description)

I as a gamer of all PlayStation gens as well as PC I believe that the debate between whether Fortnite or PUBG is better really comes down to how the gamer plays. For one yes both are competitive (yes I have played both) but PUBG is more of the common gamers competitive game where Fortnite is more in my eyes a E-League game. Yes both like I said are very competitive and both have some serious competitions with some really good pros dedicated to Each, but Fortnite has a building concept and many ways to push players to more skilled at the game and to show off their skills to others. YouTube and Twitch also has big part to play in this as well. For PUBG I see a lot of Content Creators use PUBG as game to either mess around with their friends or just play casually. Fortnite on the other hand I see more of competitive content with creators. Fortnite to me seems to be a more serious "get good scrub" kinda game. PUBG yes has some of that but with all of its bugs and moments that I have experienced, I feel that PUBG is a more relaxing game with some funny moments. Again this all comes down to the type of game you are wanting to play and or the type of gamer you are, No matter the console.
Fortnite May Possibly Be Better (read description)

I am doing a social experiment where I talk to someone who likes 'pUbg' and hates 'Fortnite' to see the general reason for their strongly held standpoint. Quick Note: I've got no hard bias to spread upon my peers because I have never played 'pUbg' so don't let my seemingly hateful opinions distract or trigger you from your viewpoint. Simply, stay calm and state your claims, reasons, and counterclaims. Thank you for cooperating "Mister Opponent Guy."