BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

FRAMEWORK: Con claims that I have not provided a framework under which we can evaluate arguments, but I most certainly have-- just without explicitly calling it a 'framework', as Con has done. I presented a utilitarian framework, in which ethical relevance is determined by a being's ability to experience meaningful suffering and their interest in avoiding it, and justified the existence of animal rights from that perspective. Since the utilitarian and egoistic frameworks aren't very compatible, I will obviously have to demonstrate why the utilitarian one is superior in order the affirm the resolution, which is what I am using this round for. I will not be disputing that animal rights don't exist under an egoistic framework, as that would be nearly impossible; instead, I'll demonstrate why the concept of ethical egoism itself is flawed. 1. It is a prime example of is/ought fallacy-- a form of non-sequitur in which one falsely assumes that because something *is* done a certain way, it *ought* to be done that way. The observation that we as humans always are always "trying to recognize self-benefiting ends" in no way shows that it is ethically desirable to do so-- there is no logical connection presented between what *is* true, and what we *ought* to do. Until Pro shows why the default selfish mindset of human beings makes the accomplishment of selfish goals a valid criteria for morality, his egoistic framework should be rejected. Morality does not necessarily have to conform to human nature. 2. Let's assume that humans do, indeed, act primarily out of self-interest. Obviously, we all value our own interests-- our own happiness, our own suffering. It is nonsensical to value our own self-interests, recognize that all other humans also have such self-interests based in the same desires for net happiness, yet refuse to value the interests of others. Why should we only value our own interests? Objectively, no human is innately superior to another, so all of their self-interests must be valued equally, which essentially is the core premise of utilitarianism. In conclusion, since my utilitarian framework is more objective in its accounting for human self-interests, and it is not based in is/ought fallacy, we can only conclude that my utilitarian framework his preferable to Con's egoistic one.
Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

Resolved: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights.This is an old LD topic. All types of LD cases are acceptable, and this debate will be done in LD format. Round structure will go as thus:Round One: AFF PRESENTS CASE. THIS ROUND IS NOT JUST FOR ACCEPTANCERound Two: Neg Case + Rebuttals, Aff RebuttalsRound Three: Neg rebuttals, Aff RebuttalsGl to my opponent!
Famer's Story-Writing Debate Tournament Round #1 DakotaKrafick VS Logic_on_rails

Apologies for my last round’s forfeiture; it seems time has not been my friend in this particular debate. The conduct point is inarguably my opponent’s.I had planned for the Contest of Riddles to simply be the first arc in a larger story; that whoever should win the contest become mayor by round two or three, then spend the rest of the story doing whatever duties come with such a position.But that is part of the excitement of co-authoring a tale in this fashion; it never turns out like you’d expect! The main focus has revealed itself to be the Contest of Riddles, and now that focus is coming to an end.I thank you, Logic_on_rails, for creating a most interesting story with me and I hope you’ve had as much fun with it as I have.So, without further ado, the final round:* * * * * * * * *“Impossible alone, yet facile in pairsIt’s attainment the heart of near all dares“Without it, man would die, yet men live without itThis is my riddle,” she said, “now the answer, what is it?”Man would die without it, Lenny thought fiercely,Yet they live without it? This will be difficult surelyThe sands ran low, Lenny quite perplexedThen at the last second, he called his answer: “the answer is sex!”“That is right,” she said, then added with a laugh,“Was I right to think you a virgin; that took long enough.”Flushed, Lenny’s concentration was brokenHe gave her the next riddle, but it was clear he was chokingThe answer came easily, nay practically instantlyThen she asked, he answered, he asked, she answered, back and forth fervently“Daunting to the wise, yet simple to the foolTrivial most days, yet most pertinent now to you“Whether in the black of night or light of day, it eludesIts existence, however, this rhyme clearly alludes“Without this question, it cannot be known; but even so, it is unknown without question,”Lenny finished his riddle, his voice holding aggressionHe wanted this contest over with once and for allBut this woman, against no riddle will she fall!Lenny should have won, but this woman was like a cancerAnd to top it all off, she spoke: “’Tis the riddle’s answer.”“The riddle’s answer is the riddle’s answer, she is right.”His mind becoming weary, this has been too long of a fight Down but not out, he managed to answer the next queryI will win, he thought, I will have the fame and the glory!There was only one riddle left he knew that might cut her down to sizeSo this is it, he thought, to whom will go the prize?
Famer's Story-Writing Debate Tournament Round #1 DakotaKrafick VS Logic_on_rails

Nary forty contestants remained in the Contest of RiddlesAt least half which were Aremair’s harem, him standing squarely in the middle Eagerly they fought for him, seduced by his smile and charmInvincible he thought himself, no one could do him harmTwenty of his women were left, he counted in his headTheir minds, he noted, as dull as their performances in bedBut with so many, the win was surely his!His plan was flawless, so genius it all is!Whenever it was one of their turns, rare as it was(sad but true, their wit was nothing to earn applause)They would give him the next riddle, one they both already knewThen he would give his answer and turn straight to Lenny or that shrewThere was one weakness in his genius plan, though not a big flawBut big enough for her to see, and the flaw, you see, she did sawThese women he seduced each individuallySo each thought herself his one and only“You musn’t act like my lover,” Aremair had warned one before the contest started“Or they’ll know my win was ill-earned,” and with that he departedHe had fed the same line to all of the othersIn order to ensure none could find out about each otherAnd he had done so, he thought at least, in privacyBut that woman had heard, by luck, from a bend in the alleyThis was the flaw, and what a flaw that it wasSo marvelous this will be, she thought, imagining the applause“I choose you,” she pointed to one she knew was part of his scheme“Solve this riddle and I’ll acknowledge you keen:“The acme of chivalry, his name is AremairLike any gentleman, he has but one maiden, beautiful and fair“Not the brightest she is, but I’m sure he loves her all the sameIn order to solve this riddle, you need but give me her name”“Hold on a minute,” Aremair blurted loudly in objection“That isn’t a riddle; it’s just a gossipy question!”“He’s right,” Lenny agreed, “It doesn’t seem fair.How could this person know who’s the love of Aremair?”“I’m sure she has an idea,” the woman said, having so much fun.“But if she thinks it impossible, I could always give her harder one.”Her victim was frightened, covered in sweatA harder one? she thought, I’m sure that wasn’t an empty threat!Aremair had told her to keep their love secretThis she remembered, but wasn’t winning more important than their silly agreement?“I know the answer,” she said and Aremair almost died“It is I," she shouted with all of her pride.
Famer's Story-Writing Debate Tournament Round #1 DakotaKrafick VS Logic_on_rails

That pale moon, replaced by sun it soon wasThe city below full of much buzz because...The Town Fair, finally, today was the day!Happy faces and good fun you saw every which wayMany games they played, much food they ateTill it was that time they had longed, the hour grown late"Hear one and hear all," the mayor did shout,"Who here thinks he worthy to carry my clout?"For as you all know, it is now that time:The Contest of Riddles, have you got the spine?"Sign-ups are soon over, and happy I amTo see so many participate, this'll be such a jam!"Then Lenny stepped down from that tall podiumHis speech now over, it was time for the fun!Nearly a hundred there were, all gathered togetherMore than any year before, just staring at each otherAremair, of course, was there among themSurrounded by his seduced haremExchanged glances with that woman, he first didThen Lenny, of him, he thought, I must first ridDing, Dong, Ding, Dong, LeMore's bell rangAnd that was the signal, the contest had began!As current mayor, Lenny had first pickSo he turned and said to that woman just for kicks,"I choose you, stranger" with a voice so brittle,"Can you answer this year's very first riddle?"
In Order to Abolish Illness all Hamsters must be Sacrificed

Pro once again obviously trolled and never supported the resolution in his arguments. He talks about being the president and about government secrets which is a sign of an obvious trolls. At one point, he even contradicted himself at one place: ". .. to terms with the fact that almost every disease does. .. " Not only did he troll, but failed at trolling, and thus, he has not supported the resolution, since it says that illness itself would be abolished if we made hamsters extinct. But there are many diseases that don't have anything to do with this, like mental diseases, or AIDS (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), and they won't go away if we kill all hamsters.
In Order to Abolish Illness all Hamsters must be Sacrificed

Indeed I do have one more chance to say the thing that you appear to have repetitively ignored. The government has been hiding this from you for reasons that I am not in a position to divulge. I am sorry if you cannot accept this truth but we all have to come to terms with things in life. You, for example, must come to terms with the fact that almost every disease does come from hamsters in some form or another. The evil fur-ball masterminds will inflict illness and pain to entire nations if they are not stopped soon. An interesting fact is that some hamsters used to live in deserts such as the Sahara, in the day they would be warm enough and when it got to the night they would use their little hamster brains to come up with the innovative idea of burrowing under the sand for warmth. They use all sorts of methods such as this to survive and as we are the dominant species on this planet they will soon be attempting to wipe us out. Why, you may ask. Well, many people have hamsters as pets, and they feed them the standard food that one would expect for a pet, however hamsters are not huge fans of this and hate this fact. Research when communicating with them shows that they felt as though we were keeping them as prisoners and were using them as slaves for our entertainment. That is of course, rather drastic in my opinion yet not entirely irrelevant. If they feel such a way then there is surely an obvious motive for them to get to their labs and conjure these evil illnesses. If you cannot accept the truth that hamsters have done these things then you may be subject to the ill that they inflict upon their enemies. I feel sorry for you, but if you do not believe in their intelligence, then their devilish minds may find a way to infiltrate our race - and therefore, in order to protect us, I order a public burning of the creatures.
In Order to Abolish Illness all Hamsters must be Sacrificed

You appear to be under the influence of the idea that for some reason AIDS is not connected to hamsters. Well, I beg to differ. There has been irrefutable proof supplied to support this and for your incapability not to see that is astonishingly infuriating an implies a large lack of intelligence. Hamsters are clearly involved in many of the world's illnesses. If you are trying to defend the cause that all diseases would not be remedied by this simple process then you are surely mistaken, it appears that you, for some reason, think that little of the world's diseases are caused by hamsters, when it is in fact most of them that are caused by this. By the way, would you prefer to burn the hamster, which would completely eliminate all chance of problem, or put the hamsters through less pain and behead them? This may not, however, remove all chance of diseases spreading.
In Order to Abolish Illness all Hamsters must be Sacrificed

I accept, and 'ere we go:I won't even adress Pro's points because he has a fatal flaw in his argument. He apparently, thinks that "sacrificing" all hamsters wold abolish illnesses. But illness itself is such a wide term which is not transfered by a single species. Even if all hamsters were dead, only the hamster-transmited diseases would be abolished, and not illness as a whole. How would killing all hamsters destroy AIDS, for instance? Therefore, his argument fails because it doesn't support the resolution he is arguing for.I await his response.
In Order to Abolish Illness all Hamsters must be Sacrificed

Hamsters carry all sorts of illnesses that are harmful to members of the public. Last year, 500 people died from illnesses that derive from hamsters. These illnesses, such as Hamster Pox, Hamsteritis, Cholera, and several more have been traced back to large involvement with hamsters. For decades, now, scientists and politicians have tried to find a way to solve it, but have not been able to. They may have blamed these illnesses on other things, or claimed that they do not exist, however I am sure that if you look into it, really look into it, you'll find that the truth isn't as sweet as the leaders of our society make it seem. How do I know the truth? Well, I am the soon-to-be president of the United States, and I will do all that I can to protect members of my state. Therefore I propose that we execute these evil masterminds in a public burning.
Abortion

Do you have no sympathy for the mother at all? In this day and age a woman is not in control of what she does with her own body because 'authorities' think that the health and wellbeing of only a potential life is more important than the health and wellbeing of an already existing human. A woman should at least have the right to abort if her health is jeopardised. She should have the right to abort if that's what she wants to do - what child wants to know they were unplanned and unwanted?
Liberal Movements Have Historically Been Vicious in Nature

I move to affirm the resolution that Liberal movements have historically been vicious in nature. Definitions: Liberal - someone who falls to the left in a political system, who believes in government programs (health care is a good example, as is welfare) and a larger scope of government, also favors monitoring of business. Viciousness - The desire to cause harm to others; extreme cruelty ----------------------------------------- As one will find that every movement that the liberals have been a part of historically has been vicious in nature. During the Civil rights movement violent protests broke out all over the country in cities like Chicago, D.C. and Detroit; cars were burned and people died[1]. During the 2000 elections Liberal radicals were angered by the Florida recount and not only exposed themselves to small school children, but took elderly citizens hostage and demanded that Gore be declared the winner, or they would kill the senior citizens.[2] A similar incident took place during 2008 election, where a man violently attacked a McCain supporter carving an B into her cheek.[3] In closing these all evidence of how liberal movements have been historically vicious. Thank You, and God Bless America -------------------------------------------- Sources: [1]http://www.thedctraveler.com... [2]http://www.us-japan.org... [3]http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Liberal Movements Have Historically Been Vicious in Nature

I should consider instigating a debate on the assertion that PalinFan isn't really a Palin fan and is trolling the website to make fun of conservatives by pretending to be one that uses obvious logical blunders. I call a breach in conduct. Nonetheless, I must continue this debate to sustain any dignity it still may contain. === RESPONSES === "The road to hell is full of good intentions, it is a fact that all the above listed movements led to the economic downturn of 2007, and as such can be considered vicious." >> Proof sir, or no go. "All this proves is that my opponent has little to no sensory-motor skills, since he cannot see the highly detailed article on this incident he simply believes it never happened." >> Still waiting for a working link. "In the last round my opponent made an attempt to unfairly slander conservatives, painting them as oppressors, while he did little to prove that liberal movements have not been vicious." >> I showed evidence in support of my supposed "slander". I effectively countered my opponent's evidence for his claims and he has not addressed these. Quite an assured sign of defeat. So with evidence on my side and none on his, who is making the real slander here? "I would a this point like to remind him that he has the Burden of Proof in this debate." >> You're not fooling anyone. You have a heavy burden of proof in this debate far out weighing mine. Not only are you the Instigator but the title of the debate is a positive assertion and you are PRO, which means you are making it. "Thank you" >> You're welcome.
Liberal Movements Have Historically Been Vicious in Nature

Counter Arguments: "Lets take a look at America, it started with anti-monarchism(Liberal), then slavery abolitionism(Liberal), women's suffrage and gender equality(Liberal), anti-segregation and race equality(Liberal), workers rights(Liberal), peace movements(Liberal), now the Liberals are still pursuing all these things along many more such as homosexual equality and loads of individual rights. The Liberals have always been on the more humane said of history." >>The road to hell is full of good intentions, it is a fact that all the above listed movements led to the economic downturn of 2007, and as such can be considered vicious. "The link for the source of your information was broken so this contention currently stands void of meaning until a reliable source is provided that confirms it." >> All this proves is that my opponent has little to no sensory-motor skills, since he cannot see the highly detailed article on this incident he simply believes it never happened. -------------- Arguments: In the last round my opponent made an attempt to unfairly slander conservatives, painting them as oppressors, while he did little to prove that liberal movements have not been vicious. I would a this point like to remind him that he has the Burden of Proof in this debate. Thank you
Arguments for and against Democracy.

Alright, for this I will defend my arguments (clarifying them) and address as much of your arguments as I can.With my point on political parties, I was mainly referring to third parties (such as in the United States). Think of the Libertarian Party. If you were to survey people who pay a good bit of attention to politics, you'd find an amount of Libertarians that is disproportionate to the amount of votes that they actually receive in elections. Now, with our current election system, one candidate has to win over 50% of the electoral votes in order to win. This, from the start, is setting things up for a two party system. A lot of people recognize the unlikelihood of their peers voting for the same third-party candidate (and the unlikelihood of their votes coming in as a majority among the millions of voters who essentially pick their favorite color on election day). This leads to third parties being unviable. Now, with a leader appointing people, the person appointing people can consider all candidates, who all have an equal opportunity to be selected.When you addressed my point on tyranny by majority, you seem to have asserted that democracy takes care of this problem, though you have said very little on how it does this. In addition, you have said little on how freedom is exclusive to democracy in the paragraph after that. As for my point on efficiency, debate and public input can still occur in a non-democratic government. The government is simply not dependent on input of the people. I might also add that knowledge of national secrets (specifically military operations, which have to be kept secret in order to not compromise national security, for obvious reasons) could factor in to certain decisions, and that the public can not be made aware of all secrets, lest they be leaked to enemy nations."4) There is rule of law and respect for rights. "This is an interesting clarification. However, it does raise the point of how easy it is to allow a dictator to come into power. A government is as powerful as it is allowed to be, and if the people choose to allow a government to have unlimited power, then it will have unlimited power. Needless to say, democratic influence should be limited. " 5) A democratic government is a more accountable form of government,"Accountability is implied in all governments. Dictators face an uprising if they make their people unhappy enough. "9) Democracy allows us to correct its own mistakes."Some nations have been known to democratically elect (or passively allow) a dictator to come in power. How do you think Hitler ever rose to power? And once he was in power, he couldn't be voted out. It's pretty common for dictators to stomp on any set limits on their power. This would essentially be democracy killing itself.This was an interesting debate, and I would like to thank Pro for participating. I would encourage voters to vote honestly based on who they think had the best arguments.
Arguments for and against Democracy.

Alright, I will try to follow the same format, though I'm going to categorize my points. Voters in a democratic system might not make the best choice or the choice that truly best represents society's best interests, due to: Being irrational in general. Advertising influence of a disproportionately wealthy upper class (think campaign funding in the US - voters are very easily influenced by campaigns). Being more concerned with their own well-being instead of the overall well-being of everyone. Not considering the long-term outcomes of decisions that improve conditions in the short term, possibly creating a difficult situation for future generations. Democracy often results in tyranny by majority, since a majority could blockade any measure intended to serve minority interests. Minorities may 'give up' on democracy, not voting due to the fact that their votes essentially do nothing unless more people agree with them. Democracies most often lend themselves to a small number of parties, where voters either have to conform to one group's values, ignore some of their own values in order to conform, or simply not participate in elections. Pure democracies are very slow and inefficient, since it takes a lot of time to count and recount referendums. Tyranny by majority is as bad or worse than dictatorship.
Arguments for and against Democracy.

Arguments for democracy :-1) Soveiregnity is strong as major decisions can only be taken by the elected representatives and no outside interference is legal.2) Free and fair elections give a fair choice to the citizens to change the rulers3) The choice of changing rulers is available to all in an equal basis. ONE man/ ONE vote/ ONE value.4) There is rule of law and respect for rights. 5) A democratic government is a more accountable form of government,6) Democracy improves the quality of decision making.7) Democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts.8) The fundamental rights enhances the dignity of a citizen.9) Democracy allows us to correct its own mistakes.