BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Basic universal human rights leads to the same rights for farm animals

Pigs are considered by most experts as smarter than dogs. But even if cows/chickens/pigs were not as intelligent as dogs, why does the intelligence level of a sentient being justify killing it?Consistency test. If the intelligence level of a human [mentally disabled] was no greater than the intelligence level of a cow, would we then be justified in killing the human? If not, then intelligence is not a valid justification to use when killing something. You'd have to deploy a consistent argument for the justification you use to commit an action.The rest of what you're saying is irrelevant to my argument, and most of it is completely false. I will humor some of your comments in this Round 2 response, but you need to stick to the question I asked about the key difference you need to pinpoint. For now you have said intelligence. In which I have already showed how that is flawed, unless you're willing to be okay with killing a mentally disabled human [who has no greater intelligence than a cow] for food?Saying an animal doesn't know what slavery is and doesn't care, is objectively false. Animals have emotions and experience similar mental states to humans. Just because they can't talk, doesn't mean they aren't thinking with more complexity than you assume. Animals also pursue happiness and better mental states, similar to how we do. Saying they lack the ability to pursue happiness is just a lack of scientific knowledge on your part.Degrading treatment is something that you yourself would not accept. If you wouldn't accept it for yourself, why would you accept it for the animal? Again, the only justification you have provided so far is "intelligence". In which, can we deploy degrading treatment to the mentally disabled, since they are of lesser intelligence?The statement of factory farming not being as bad as the wild, is again, ignorantly false. Baby male cows are killed shortly after their born. Baby male chickens are grounded up within days (or hours) after they are born. Female chickens are debeaked. None if these things would happen in the wild, in which just displays your ignorance on what happens in these farms. The rest of what you're saying is irrelevant to the argument, and again, factually wrong. I am not going to entertain a response for that stuff, as you're getting off track here.Focus on what justification you are using to treat animals differently. Which is intelligence level. And if that intelligence level was present in a human [such as the mentally disabled], is it not ok to treat that human like you would a cow? If not, you have an inconsistent position, which is internally contradictory. It frames like this:I am okay killing a cow based on their lower intelligence level.I am not okay killing a human based on their lower intelligence level.You cannot deploy a justification and accept it in one context, but reject it in another context. That's a contradictory position.
Basic universal human rights leads to the same rights for farm animals

The reason why we and the other animals deserve these rights is intelligence. The majority of animals that aren't considered food, are either intelligent, or are more useful as companions or co-workers than food. I will now address your points 1 by 1. The right are human rights that are used to fend off human concepts an animal doesn't know what slavery is and frankly it doesn't care, an animal's only goal is survive so as long as it if feed and watered it thinks it needs nothing else. And on the topic of degrading treatment, what defines this? An animal being in a pen, the or the treatment for getting them into the pen. The animal doesn't care, we keep trying to apply human principles on beings that lack them. Most of what you'd say animals endure in a factory farm aren't nearly as bad as in the wild. They are safe, they don't need to worry about food or water, and they are sickness free. The right for dogs and cats, where given to them to stop beatings and other forms of abuse, you wouldn't and don't abuse a large animal in the same way. For a number of reasons, first it is dangerous an animal can take care of itself and it will resist anything it doesn't like, second they have somewhere to go, house pets can't escape abuse a cow can just run off tear down a fence and be gone in a matter of minutes. And once these right are applied to animals it opens the flood gate, studies have found that certain vegetable do in fact feel pain, well no more vegetables, then come the problem with microorganisms which are animals, well no more antibiotics sorry kids. If you can apply a human concept to animals why not apply it to everything, because they don't understand, or don't care.
Basic universal human rights leads to the same rights for farm animals

These 3 articles of universal human rights will lead you to deploying the same 3 rights for animals.http://www.un.org...That link displays all 30 articles of universal human rights, but I will only focus on these basic 3: Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security (Article 3) Freedom from Slavery (Article 4) Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment (Article 5) I don't believe all animals deserve every right a human has, such as Article 17, which is the right to own property. But I do believe all animals deserve these basic 3 rights, which have been granted to humans. I would also like to point out; many different states within the US have already granted these rights for domestic and wild animals. More rights have been granted to animals like dogs and cats, but any violation of these rights can become a felony or misdemeanor.The challenger in this debate would need to explain why humans [and some animals like dogs] are deserving of these 3 basic rights, but not all animals. And the animals I am specifically referring to are chickens, cows and pigs. These are the most poorly treated animals within our society, in which none of these rights have been granted to. You [as the challenger] would need to pinpoint a key difference between these factory farmed animals, and explain why you are justified in not granting them the same rights as you [or dogs]. And if that difference in the animal would justify a denying of these 3 basic rights, would the same be true if that difference was active in you [or humans]?
Marijuana should be legal all across the world

Like you stated I believe Marijuana is a gateway drug that can lead to many other bad things like Oxycontin and Heroine. This debate has been going around forever, it just matters what the drug is, first it is Tobacco, then Alcohol, and now it is Marijuana, this has to stop. Instead of the generation that will be known as the people who just want to get high. The argument is made that if we legalized the use of Marijuana that this would save money and save police officers time when arresting these men and women who use it. I would like to give a situation now of course this is drastic and I'm not comparing this to marijuana but if we legalized murder there would be a lot less arrests, thus the funding would go down, but there is a problem with legalizing murder. In this link there are stats on this subject. http://www.intheknowzone.com... It is reported that 59% of people who smoke pot can't remember a conversation they had a couple hours ago. It is also reported that 41% of students who said they were stoned while reading in school said they couldn't remember what they read. Marijuana also is shown to cause respiratory damage symptoms include - Daily cough - Chronic Bronchitis - More frequent chest colds - Injured lung structures - Pneumonia - and an increased risk of Oral and Lung cancers Marijuana also causes Immune system damage, reproductive system damage, for women danger during pregnancy, emotional damage, intellectual damage, and psychological addiction. Which can all be found in the link on the side you can also see short and long-term affects. So if you think this should be world wide I would strongly disagree with you very much.
Marijuana should be legal all across the world

1) Proper grammar and spelling to be used throughout I. e. no text speak 2) If information has been obtained from sources other than your own knowledge please provide link to the source. Now as this is my first round I would like to explain why I feel that marijuana should become legal all across the world. I feel this way as many people see marijuana as a 'gateway' drug and also seen as a substance that is incredibly dangerous to the human body. I am not going it to much detail as I still want plenty of material for further rounds.
Marijuana should be legal all across the world

I have never disagreed with someone more than you. Explain why Marijuana is good! I personally think that possession of Marijuana is bad and should be a felony. And driving when your stoned is very unsafe and will kill someone, so it's nice to see your 'concern'. And it'll not make it easy for police officers to pull dead bodies away from deadly car crashes that have that God forsaken stench of pot. We all know that pot is good for medical use but that isn't what I thought this debate was about. 1. Marijuana can be used for good but I have seen first hand it being used for destruction in one's life. 2. It is a gateway drug, I know many who have overdosed on it and almost died, one did die. 3. I am not willing to ever support this, truly the best debater in the world would have to convince me.
Marijuana should be legal all across the world

I have read and fully understand your argument and u along with many others seem to be alluded by propaganda of the bad things that are seen to be surrounding marijuana but infact this is all due to the fact that marijuana as it is at the moment is not regulated by most of the world and yes the main argument is that if marijuana is legalised it shall free up police for more serious crimes and cracking down on harder drugs but not only this the average tax payer would benefit as we would pay less tax towards policing and as it is the government are all ready cutting the police and this could be the little relief on the police needed to maintain the harder sections of the law this is not the only thing that would benefit the average tax payer if legalised or even decriminalised for medical purposes the government would et tax on top of the selling of it and in total would equal 67 million dollars (my source was American) a year and that's just in tax revenue. Money is not the only benefiting factor while debating the legalisation of marijuana there is of course the medical benefits as there are many rare conditions that are able to be tamed or even cured with the use of marijuana there has also been studies and evidence of marijuana helping people with cancer enter remission. As you where saying we don't want to be known as the generation of stoners so to speak but that does not have to happen as there are two main chemicals in marijuana one called THC the one that gets you high and one called CBD and this chemical can cure or suppress certain illnesses such as a rare illness called Draft Syndrome. There is a news article about an American girl aged 5 hat had this disease she had got up to 300 fits a week and the parents were running out of options and although their whole life the were con marijuana it seemed Rio be the only option left this left them no choice but to hunt for a marijuana that was low in THC but high in CBD in order to help there daughter to which they succeeded as they found some registered growers that had cross bread to make such a strain the family bought some to try it and asked a friend to extract the essence and put it into a syringe for them to which she did the parents tried it and to there amazement it had worked their daughter had gone from 300 fits to just 1, without that marijuana she would have died and at a very young age. What I'm trying to say is that we do not need to use it recreational and et high but we can use it medically in order to help people and family's such as the figis. I trust that after I have truly explained marijuana behind the deluded misconception that most people see that you will realise marijuana isn't just there to get high from and it is not all bad infact the good of it outways the bad as yes smoking it gives you bronchitis but eating the essence with food does not so alb you feel I am talking about just getting high I am not I am talking about something much much more and it is not necessarily just there for people to get high from. SOURCES http://edition.cnn.com... http://www.policymic.com...
Equal Opportunity

To clarify this debate arose out of a discussion on the forums. The term social class is used in the socio-economic sense, not the socio-cultural, or socio-political. All individuals have an equal opportunity to advance in their socio-economic class. I will take this time to clarify terms. (adj) equal (having the same quantity, value, or measure as another) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) opportunity (a possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances)http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...(v) advance (develop further) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) social class, socio-economic class (people having the same social, economic, or educational status) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Educational Socio-economic clases are;High School Degree or GED (basic education)Some College (atleast 1 course)Associate's Degree (atleast 2 tears)Bachelor's Degree (atleast 4 years)Master's Degree (atleast 6 years)Doctorate's Degree (atleast 8 years)Economic Socio-Economic classes are;Upper Class (top 10% of incomes)Middle Class (top 50% of incomes)Lower Class (Bottom 50% of incomes)One could also divide those up even more;Super Rich (top 1%incomes)Rich (top 5% incomes)Lower Upper Class (top 10% incomes)Upper Middle Class (top 15% incomes)Lower Middle Class (top 50% incomes)Working class (bottom 50% icomes)Poor (minimum and part time wages)It would be easier for both sides to stick to Upper, Middle, and Lower classes, rather than the more detailed classes.
Equal Opportunity

Resolved: In the United States, all individuals have an equal opportunity to advance social class.First round is for acceptance, clarification of terms, and other concerns.It should be specified that this discussion will be on the topic of substantive liberties rather than formal liberties. Yes, all individuals under a capitalist system may be legally allowed to acquire capital but that is not the point of this debate. This debate will focus on the real life prospects of individuals born with different natural abilities.
End times prophecies of the Bible VS Any other scenario of future events

I am amused with your argument. However let's continue. The very first rule about prophecy is prophecy doesn't and shouldn't need any interpretation and prophecy must be explicit. Because anyone can make any statement and other person can interpret it to mean anything. (And I would like you to cite the soures.)How should prophecy be? Like it - "The Hour (of Resurrection) will not occur..... until the land of the Arabs returns to being pastures and rivers," [Sahih Muslim] or "The Hour (of Resurrection) will not occur until the Arabian Peninsula returns, as it used to be, paradises and rivers," [Musnad Ahmed]. It is a prophecy, and it is explicit, and empirical (means when time comes we will observe it).In Islam signs of end times divided into two categories, Minor Signs, and Major Signs. The most of minor signs aready happened, but none of major signs happened.Example : "Surely, Constantinople (Istanbul) will be conquered (by my community); how blessed the commander who will conquer it, and how blessed his army." I don't need to prove that this prophecy came to pass. Here is the list of Minor signs : 1. The barefooted bedouins (Arabs) competing in building tall buildings.2. Increase of usery/interest so that no one will able to escape being tainted by it.3. The enemies of the Muslims dividing the Muslim's wealth and lands between them4. The increase of sexual promiscuity, and new diseases that people had not herd of before spreading amongst them as a consequence of that.5. Nakedness of women while still being dressed and people copulating like donkeys in public.6. Shouting in the mosques and lack of unity.There are many more, you can read them in hadith books. But how world will end, only God knows, any other claim is just non-sense (but we can make an observational study to predict the future of universe, which are valid studies).112 characters remaining.
End times prophecies of the Bible VS Any other scenario of future events

so what do you think the future will hold different from what the Bible says? The Bible says the whole world will come up against Israel to battle and they will be defeated by God. It also says Russia will invade Israel, a one world dictator will rise to power, and a time of peace followed by terrible wars and tribulations......the great tribulation which will destroy much of the earth's population........do you picture a different scenario for the future?
End times prophecies of the Bible VS Any other scenario of future events

My Opponent must speculate about a future for the world that will differ from the future as foretold in the Bible. My opponent cannot say "you can't prove the future, so I win the debate". This is to be a discussion of differing views of the future of mankind and the planet Earth. The Muslim view of the future is very different from the Biblical prophecies of the future. The atheistic vision of the future of course is different from the Biblical view of the future. There are many differing concepts of what the future of mankind and the planet Earth will be. My opponent must portray one or more of them as the likely future scenario which differs from the Bible's predictions for the future. This debate is about the long term future, not only about the next ten minutes or the next ten days or the next ten years. You must give a sample in the comments of your ideas of the future before I will allow you to accept this challenge.
End times prophecies of the Bible VS Any other scenario of future events

God always has and always will protect Israel. While He does allow them to be chastised as in the Bablylonian captivity and the following dispersion throughout the centuries, He promised to bring them back to their own land from all corners of the earth. Now the world is lining up to fight over Israel, with Russis and China using the Muslim nations as pawns and team players in preparation for their attacks on Israel. The USA is not identifiable in Bible prophecy, in fact, the Bible clearly states ALL nations of the world will fight against Israel, so in that future scenario, the USA must be gone or fallen(maybe sold out) to a foreign power. The Bible says the Kings of the East will send a 200 million man army to attack Israel, and China today boasts of being ready to field an army of that exact number. The Bible also says the kings of the North will come down to attack Israel. Moscow is due north of Israel, and ancient tribal names for Russia are given in the Bible in reference to the kings of the North. There is much more, but you can rest assured that the Bible is true, Jesus Christ will return to rule the world from Mt. Zion, and Islam will be gone forever one day. The Muslims prophecies sound pretty if they can just kill all the Jews and Christians to make it happen......but God is not going to allow that. Sorry.
God is a Racist

Your assumption is wrong on several levels: First of all you claim: "God is a racist" And your motivation is the interpretation of words from 1 religion. There are many other religions around, some far bigger than the jiddisch religion. 2 examples: Islam (by my knowledge, both main factions) and most, if not all, Christian religions. Second, an equal interpretation of Deuteronomy 14:2 could be: the people of Israel (in the context of the old testament) are God's most loved people. This however doesn't imply in any way that God doesn't care about the others nor that they can't earn eternal life. It's not because i say "Jelien is my treasured person from all the people that are on the face of the earth" that i don't care about other people and/or wish/do them harm. Third and last: let us even presume it is true that all the other go to hell. Now, people can only be jew by being born out of a jewish mother. Now, let's assume a jewish woman marries someone from a totally different place with a totally different skin. They get a daughter and she does the same. And so on. In the end, you can have a legitimate jewish person from a totally different race and with hardly any link to the original tribe. (only a factor of 1/(2^n) with n=generation is still from the original tribe's genepool ;)) So God's preference would not be based on race in that case, so it ain't racism hence God ain't a racist. Note that each argument on its own breaks your claim, i'm sure you'll be able to dig deeper in those old testament books to find something against my second point, but don't forget that it will still leave the other 2 arguments standing. Kind regards, Shorack
God is a Racist

"For you are a holy people to your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 14:2. Since the Jews are God's "Chosen People" it follows that non-Jewish people will not be accepted into Heaven. This is racist, because an Amazonian Indian, for example, who had never come into contact with anyone from the outside world, would be condemned to an eternity in Hell for the sin of being born in a South American jungle.
The Biblical Adam and Eve were real people

I will be arguing that it is scientifically, logically, and historically impossible that the Biblical Adam and Eve ever existed in the real world. Pro must argue not only that Adam and Eve are historical, non-fictional figures, but that the accounts of their lives outlined in Genesis are completely accurate. Therefore, the BoP is shared by Pro and Con.Definitions:Adam - according to the Book of Genesis, the first man, created from dust by God.Eve - according to the Book of Genesis, the first woman, created from one of Adam's ribs.Biblical - going by what the Bible (Old Testament in this case) has to say about the subject.Rounds:Round 1 - acceptanceRound 2 - opening argumentsRound 3 - defense and rebuttalRound 4 - final defense and conclusionGood luck to whoever accepts!
Labour is better than Conservative (UK Politics)

I am SOOOOO happy that you are open to new perspectives. I encourage you to do some digging of your own and come with your own conclusion because I could totally find things that support what you are saying. Its important however to understand both sides of an argument. This is really encouraging and I hope that you continue to do research and not abandon your point of view with out at least researching yourself. Lastly, This was a lot of fun to research. Don't feel bad I am a nationally ranked debater. Lol