BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
animal testing

The excuse does not revolve on capacity to consume. It deals with the human values we believe are fundamental to mankind. We are more important. Selfish as it seems, a human's collective thinking would contradict. Would you seriously consider killing a man before killing a chicken? This is why it is legal to kill an animal for eating. It is not, however, legal for someone to kill a human, especially for cannibalism (crime against humanity). It is undebatable that human nature leads us to believe that we are more important than any other animal. Why so? That is irrelevant to the resolution. It is only used for comparison. On the other hand, with my opponent's logic a person should die in place for a chicken. That said, I would like to add that I believe cruel treatment of animals is wrong. However, my opponents alternative is clearly contradictory to most beliefs. If a couple of chickens have to die in order to create a cure for cancer, so be it. I extend all my arguments made in the previous round. I have voided all rebuttals and await any further argument in round 3.
animal testing

Why is it so impractical for humans to endure this? what makes them so different than animals? why are animals more greater and more important than animals, they are larger and consume more? that i believe is no excuse. we basically already test the products ourselves. Would you look at a bottle of body lotion, body soap, makeup and say iam going to put it in my mouth..... probally not... so why would you force down someone else's throat. If you think its alright and just natural to do so..... we should shove you in cages and shove tubes down your throat, force foreign objects down your throat and beat you senslessly. And you still have the heart to say thats okay?
animal testing

Hello. The reason my opponent votes negative on Animal Testing is because animals do not deserve the cruelties put upon them. However, my opponents alternative is flawed for the following reasons. 1. It is essential in scientific and technological advances. As long as pain and suffering for the animals is minimized, I believe that it is acceptable to use testing on animals as opposed to having humans go through the same process. That said, it is very impractical to have humans endure these tests. 2. It would prevent any harmful side-effects had the testing been done on humans. The ethics is questionable. However, it is widely believed that the value of a human is MUCH greater than the value on an animal. It is undebatable that we, as people, would rather have someone else do something. As long as everyone accepts this fact, there are no ethical dilemmas. In summary, I believe that animal testing is VERY desirable and the ethical issues are outweighed by the benefits of using them as opposed to human beings. My opponents argument is loose and the alternative is impractical and may cause danger to human beings.
animal testing

Why should animals have to suffer for our society to make medicines and makeup for humans. just because they dont have a voice to speak, makes them an easy target to take advantage of for their own uses. Its very selfish and unnesscary. Why dont we make people get tested on these prodcuts, what makes animals the target for being abused in such unbelievable ways. What makes animals different then humans? every year 100 millon animals are killed just so your hair stays in place?
Debate.org should have a Prom

1) I don't think that a prom that you explain will not be taken seriously later in your argument will help the cause of improving DDO members' views on females. Moreover, the concepts of "Will anybody be lucky enough to have 2 or more prom dates and look like hes pimping?," "getting laid," and "dropping a baby eight months later" don't seem like very gender-equal principles. The opponent states, "Prom on DDO isnt supposed to be as serious as the one on real life, its supposed to be a fun hook up game." This doesn't really correspond with the actual concept of a prom. This is more like the parody of a prom, which is not addressed in the resolution or in the initial argument. Guys will hook up with guys, and then the anti-gay marriage people will be offended and violence will ensue. Let us remember that 33% of DDO is anti-gay marriage [1], so this would not be the most gay-friendly event. 2) Regardless of how they act, many DDO members are beyond high school (and prom) age. Take RoyLatham for example [2]; he is married and probably has no interest in finding a date for an online prom. This prom idea excludes many important members of the DDO community who are married or whose partners are not interested in joining them in a virtual prom. And I'm posing the idea that this would make younger DDO users more vulnerable to predatory attacks by pedophiles who lurk all over the internet, including DDO. 3) I don't know if this prom thing would even catch on, so I wouldn't emphasize the gossip argument too much. And if the event fails, then the gossip will simply be negative (i.e., how moronic imabench is for coming up with this concept.) 4) ...What? So basically it consists of baseless voting from anyone on DDO who chooses to vote? This has nothing to do with the traditional concept of Prom King and Prom Queen, which actually typically involves votes from people who actually know them. 5) Well, that really has little to do with the actual concept of "prom," but all right, then. 6) "Hook up" with anonymous people on an online debate site? What would that even entail? Where would the gossip arise from, by the way? From what I see, this whole idea would be forum-based... ... So, uh, in conclusion... Um, in conclusion... Why the **** am I debating this? ... [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...
Debate.org should have a Prom

1) There is no indication that girls are not treated well by guys right now. And it is not plausible that a virtual prom would lead to a strong increase in conduct; in fact, I think trolling would spike. The anonymity offered by the internet allows for people to not take this "prom" thing as seriously as they would in real life. On the point that "the number of guys on this site heavily outnumbers the number of girls," it will be likely that many guys will be left without prom dates and therefore be vengeful, leading to a number of prom-crashing attempts; hence, the opponent's theory that there would be an upswing in conduct is nullified. 2) Many of the males on here have already completed high school, but for those that have not, it would be risky for them to attempt to contact "prom dates" on this site, which consists of many anonymous members whose true backgrounds are unknown to us. Having adolescent males staying in contact with people who state that they are males on this website is not a good idea. 3) The opponent hasn't proven whether or not the gossip would benefit DDO or not. Moreover, the whole "acid in the punch" and "getting laid" stuff seems to be a little.... Uh, how would this prom even work? 4) What would be the criteria to vote for Prom King and Prom Queen? It would most likely just be based on debates, because that's how most of the people on here know each other... So what is the use of incorporating the "prom" concept in their names? 5) This argument would just shows that a prom, in general, can have fun things going on during it. It is not germane to the resolution (whether or not DDO should have a prom.) --- 6) Feasibility: How would this happen? I kindly ask the opponent to define "prom" in a context that would suit what he is trying to argue.
Debate.org should have a Prom

Very Well then, reasons that DDO should have a Prom 1) It will make everyone more sociable and appreciative towards the females on DDO. It is a well known fact that the number of guys on this site heavily outnumbers the number of girls on here (at a rate of 2:1). If DDO had a prom then guys on DDO would in theory become more sociable and act more gentlemen-like towards women on DDO. Such a spike in conduct here on DDO among its members would also be welcomed to offset the usual amount of d*ckish behavior one normally sees between members in the forums and debates. 2) Guys need this Lets face it, people who spend a disproportionate amount of time on DDO most likely do not have as much luck with the ladies as they would like. A prom on DDO though allows those men to exercise their age old pickup lines, learn how to talk to women, and learn how to get the courage to ask a girl to prom, something that could benefit them later in life when their actual high school Prom comes around. 3) The gossip This is the biggest part about why there should be a prom in my opinion.... All the gossip that would be started once it was realized who showed up with the prom to who, it would be awesome! Does inferno get a date? Who is lucky enough to show up with Danielle as a date? Who does Royalpaladin choose to go with? If Jimtimmy gets a prom date then HOW THE HELL did he pull that off? Who was lucky enough to show up with Rogue or Mirza? Who will Thaddeus and FREEDO ask to Prom? Who will Innomen go to Prom with? Will anybody be lucky enough to have 2 or more prom dates and look like hes pimping? Does somebody have a prom-night-dumpster-baby? Who tries to put acid in the punch? Who wakes up the next morning with a guy she doesnt know? Who gets laid that very night? Who drops a baby 8 months later? The gossip it would cause would diffuse all of the usual feuds we see going on in the forums, allow everyone to cool off, and have a bit of fun just gossiping over stuff. 4) Prom King and Queen This would be the biggest election on DDO next to the presidential election of DDO, Prom King and Queen would hold their title for an entire year (longer than the president would hold his) So if prom were to be held on DDO then a great honor would be given to the winning couple, and a tradition could form out of it, giving DDO some swagger and class. 5) Prom Mafia Yes you heard me right, Prom mafia. A game where everyone makes strategic moves against one another at Prom for personal reasons. During such a game one may "accidentally" spill their drink on someone they dont like, change the song midway through the dance, hit on somebody else's prom date in an effort to try to catch them all (Pokemon!), or even to start dropping it like its hot and showing off some wicked dance moves. Such a thing would make Prom way more fun both for those who socialize on here and for those really into the gaming culture here on DDO. Those I believe are sufficient reasons to have a DDO Prom....
There should be a World Cup for American Football

Extend second post; all went dropped by my opponent. For voting, most look at the fact the the current World Cup has produced close games, their are 50 countries with intrest in the sport and over 20 fielding teams. The only exception is media perception in the US is that other countries don't want to play, but that's not a reason that Football shouldn't have a world cup. The Current World Cups have been successful, and the Junior world cup currently be held in Dayton, Ohio is having huge success. Vote Pro. I guess that's it.....I was kind of hoping this debate would be more lively, but o'well. Thanks anyway to my opponent for excepting this debate.
There should be a World Cup for American Football

World Cup of American Football? There is one... It's called the IFAF http://en.wikipedia.org..., and just like the soccer world cup is held every 4 years. There has been 3 so far and America participated in the last one, and predictably won it. Surprise! We sent over 3rd and 4th rate players to play against foreigners. The results were a joke. Here are some highlights: America 77-0 over South Korea and 33-7 over Germany. http://wc2007.info... It's no wonder my opponent has not heard about it. It sucks. The games are blowouts, not exiting, and quite frankly no one cares. There just isn't enough demand for American football when soccer is so popular over the world; it's embedded and people's culture and serves are a symbol of a nation's pride. It's for the same reasons soccer has failed in America that football fails over seas. There is no reason for it when other nations have soccer and we have football. We all go home happy with our own sport.
Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals.

What you're arguing about is completely off what the title suggests 'Both Christianity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals' means that the ideology that the person follows encourages the follower to torture animals, and be excessively cruel towards them. Thus far, all you've proven is how many farms are owned by Christians / Muslims, and statistics shown about how much meat is consumed by people who follow Christianity / Islam. You haven't proven how each ideology promotes excessive amounts of cruelty to animals, you've only shown how much meat is eaten and how many farms are owned by people who follow each religion. There has been no evidence about the Bible or the Quran, no criticism of the ideology, and nothing about excessive cruelty. You've only criticized the people, of the religion and not the religion itself. Needless to say, your statements have only been promoting veganism, and only proves about the excessive amount of meat eaten, which is an entirely different topic from this, and not a single word about how each religion promotes animal cruelty. Christians work in factories + Factories are cruel to animals = Christianity promotes cruelty. This is your logic and reasoning behind it as far as I can tell, which only adresses the people, but not the ideology. You also mentioned how the factory farming industry is cruel. Yet, this doesn't equate at all to how Christianity or Islam promotes excessive cruelty towards animals, and have strayed completely off topic. You said that referring to the text for each religion would result in bias. That means that you haven't argued the topic AT ALL. For the part about turning Christians into vegetarians / vegans, you're doing nothing more than forcing your own ideals onto other people, which obviously doesn't work, and losing your faith over such a thing. Like how people complain about Christians shoving Christianity down their throats, you have been doing the same with veganism. In summary, throughout this entire debate, you haven't argued the point at all. I would be willing to continue this, but if we are going to, please change the title to something more appropriate and fitting for what you've argued thus far. Thanks for debating.
Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals.

"or any real life cases about the topic related to Christianity." I've talked about factory farming in r1. It is well known that Christianity is around 70% in the USA and factory farming is rampant the USA. [3]99% of animals are raised on factory farms in the USA. [4] The majority of USA citizens are Christian. 99% of animals raised in the USA are from factory farms. Factory farming is infamous for its terrible cruelty. Therefore there is a strong positive relationship between Christianity and factory farming. I can only come to the conclusion that Christianity causes animal cruelty. As for other religions, this may also be true, but is a red herring. If religion x causes cruelty to animals, this won't change the fact that Christianity causes cruelty to animals. As for judging a religion by its religious texts, I've already gone over this in this debate any many others. Religious texts have many contradictory passages. Since people are self motivated they often select the passage that benefits them the most, using conformation bias to ignore the contradictory passage. "Gee, God says animals don't have souls, gave us souls, gave us dominion over animals, Jesus ate fish, and Jesus said it was moral to eat meat." Completely overlooking the anti-cruelty passages. If I had to point to one event that turned me from a Christian to an agnostic it is this.Nevermind that the body is a temple of the holy spirit. That if you defile your body God will destroy you. Oh no, Jesus ate one fish so then we can rationalize every single misdeed we perform to animals based upon this. I just found it was impossible to convince Christians to turn vegetarian. I honestly lost my faith arguing vegan issues with Christians on this debate site. I couldn't help but see my opponent's as heartless, ruthless, merciless, self interested, ignorant, self destructive, and just plain old evil. Thanks for debating. Sources3. http://www.answers.com...4. http://www.aspca.org...
Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals.

I fully know what you are trying to say, that to this day, christians and muslims are putting animal sacrifices into practice though it has been abolished for centuries. This may be the case for Islam, but what about Christianity? In your example, you didn't give any direct quotes from the bible, or any real life cases about the topic related to Christianity. The bible doesn't encourage EXCESSIVE cruelty to animals, it says to end them quickly. And animal sacrifices for Christianity have been long put out of practice, by the bible itself. And your comment on looking at the actions of people rather than the belief. Since in the title you are criticizing the ideology (christian / Islam) rather than the people (christian / muslim), the statement made about looking at the people's actions is irrelevant, considering this is a conversation about an ideology, rather than the people. By the looks of what your statement said, a more fitting title would be 'Muslims encourage excessive cruelty towards animals'.
Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals.

One problem with religions is that on many topics, including this topic, is the contradictory nature of religious texts. You can make point A and then complete opposite from a different passage in the same religious texts. Which then leads to confirmation bias. A reader will then pick which side of the topic to follow based upon his/her person agenda and bias. Therefore, we must judge how a religion treats animals based upon the actions of its followers. As already seen in r1, Christians an Muslims tend to treat animals horribly. Note this same train of thought could be made for violence. That religion x states in part A of its religious texts peace and part B war. That means a person following the religion will pick whatever benefits him/her the most. Finally, to really determine how a religion treats animals, we must compare the actions of followers of various religions. That way we can see how they stack up. Overall, Christianity and Islam treat animals much worse than Hinduism and Buddhism. Also, note many animal rights activist gravitate towards atheism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Which also shows that these religions have more respect for animals. Thanks for debating.
Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals.

Though I am extremely anti - Islam (due to the fact they encourage violence to all non believers rather than just non - innocent people), I can't find evidence relating to how they are cruel to animals. There are an excessive amount of quotes from the Quran that disprove curelty towards animals, for example: "He who takes pity even on a sparrow and spares its life, God will be merciful to him on the Day of Judgement." " The Qur"an "A good deed done to an animal is as meritorious as a good deed done to a human being, while an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as an act of cruelty to a human being." " The Prophet Muhammad: Hadith Same thing for Christianity, I cant find any quotes telling you to kill animals with no religious purpose. So for both religions (Keep in mind im anti islam), the mindless cruelty towards animals is not justified by either holy book. However, if you it is taken into context about killing an animal just for a sacrifice, I get where you're coming from.
Both Christanity and Islam encourage excessive cruelty to animals.

More and more I am seeing little use for either of these religions in modern day. Perhaps in a past era these ideas were necessary to survive. Yet, with no evidence of God I am beginning to question a religion who claims a supreme being created these morals, yet is very cruel to animals. I think it is well known about the Christian capitalistic factory farms. The old testament Kosher slaughtering of animals. That Christians can morally use animals for food, clothing, and experimentation. Yet, what about the newcomer to the western world? Is Islam any better? No, in many ways Islam is just as bad if not worse. I. Ritual slaughter"Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law. This method of killing is often attacked by animal rights activists as barbaric blood-thirsty ritual slaughter." [0]II. Animal sacrificesThat's right, I think this would be hard for a western to swallow, Muslims perform animal sacrifices. "This year, Eid al-Adha will occur around November 16 (the precise date will be determined by lunar observations). At Eid, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of sheep and goats will be sacrificed to celebrate the end of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, making the timing of the article particularly significant." [1]III. Discrimination against dogs. "Muslim countries, in particular, are rife with unimaginable cruelty toward animals. Walid Shoebat has been chronicling horrific cases of Muslim animal abuse. Below are two recent examples:#1: In Iran, government gets rid of stray dogs by injecting them with acid. Acid is chosen because it is the least expensive poison, but the method is cruel because it consigns the dog to a painful and slow death, as the acid slowly corrodes the dog’s guts." [2]This is heart breaking for anyone who loves animals. I find it disturbing that these two religions have so many followers in this modern world. Thanks for reading. 0. http://www.bbc.co.uk...1. http://www.animalliberationfront.com...2. https://fellowshipoftheminds.com...
Conceding and voiding debates.

If a person already has arguments to offer or wishes to over them for posterity that should be that side's right rather than forcing me to forgo my rounds as well just for a "win" in my box. What if I was waiting until the last round to put the moralistic hammer down against my opponent. Should I actually be forced to let it get buried in comments. Just because my opponent gives up, doesn't mean I should give up my potential soap box. If I want to, go ahead and let me. Rather than post when my opponent has forgone his following rounds I could forgo mine and truncate the argument earlier. There is still value in your rounds outside the debate. I have had opponents quit out and still wanted to point out how my argument succeeds. I shouldn't be forced to give up my platform because you did... not unless I don't want to.