BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Abuse should be stopped

"You can't convince a tiger not to hunt when it's hungry, not even if the potential prey would be someone's baby. This is because the tiger can't see it's *doing bad* by hunting your baby, so it cannot make a choice, between feeding its stomach or sparing the life of a baby. " Yes, a tiger can't choose not to eat a baby because it's their natural instinct. But aren't humans the same? For an example, you could eat chicken, pork, beef, fish ..etc. They are all offsprings from another animal. You eat them because you are hungry. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "On the other hand, obviously, if the tiger kills a baby, it is not guilty: the tiger simply cannot choose." Most people wouldn't feel guilty of eating other animals. "When you are hungry you eat", this is a natural instinct of human too. There are some poeple who become vegetarian too. But this is because human are omnivores. We have the choice of eating either meat or vegetable. Tigers don't have a choice but to eat meat because they are carnivores. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "However Humans have a right to respect other animals or to abuse them because it is their right to do what they want with their Private Property." I understand what you are trying to imply here. Indeed, in law, animals you own are considered "Private Property". BUT animals are not objects. You can abuse or damage an object that is your's and nobody would complain. But is it morally correct to hurt animals? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we stop Animal Abuse, where do we draw the line ? Chickens have their heads cut off during Meat Processing, Dogs being tortured even though that is the Owner's Choice.........because Dogs are Private Property,......... " I'd say we draw the line at stopping owners abusing their own pets. We kill animals because it servers some kind of advantage to us. We kill animals to eat, maybe trying to stop disease going around.
Animal Abuse should be stopped

https://pethelpful.com... My first reason is that they have feeling, just like us. How would you feel if someone beat and kick you? I would feel horrible. Animals should be respected just like how you respect other people. Do you just go and abuse other people? No, you don't. (Unless you are some kind of drugged or crazy person.) I also disagree hitting dogs when the did someting wrong. (Like chewing furniture.) Is you scold (In an angry voice but not yelling) them, they completely understand!
The Lord of the Rings are the best Fantasy novels of all time

Another good reply. :) Yes, there are good moral lessons in Lord of the Rings. However, there are a lot of great moral lessons in other pieces of fiction. For example, the Hunger Games teaches us you should never be afraid to fight for your family and stand up for what is right. Some people may be able to relate more to that than the moral lessons in Lord of the Rings. What exactly does it teach? Does it teach us to leave our home in search of adventure or that being brave can be dangerous? Are they good lessons to teach? Another thing is JRR's writing style. He favored extremely long description. Now while I can usually deal with that, I know there are some people who can't. It might bore thing and bring them out of the story. One important rule is that you never bore you reader. You want to keep their interested. If you don't, they won't read your book and probably won't try to do it again. This is sad but true. You always want to make sure your reader is invested so they keep coming back for more and more. Thirdly, Lord of the Rings is rather violent with it's battles. Not saying violence in stories is bad but you have to remember some parents like to read to their kids. Would you really want to read something violent and bloody to a child? Might not be the best idea. When it comes to the best fantasy novel, you want something both kids and adults can enjoy. You don't want to bog it down with adult themes. In order for a book to be the best fantasy novel ever, it needs to appeal to a wider audience of readers. Your turn! :)
The Lord of the Rings are the best Fantasy novels of all time

Although i agree that there are lots of new fresh fantasy Novels i don't think any of them have had as much impact on literature. Tolkin did change fantasy to a large extant which if why it is so brilliant. If love story's are what people want then the lord of the rings is a huge love story. not the Aragorn/Arwen story, i mean the platonic love between Sam and Frodo and how there relationship progresses through there life changing journey. The way these 2 characters interact throughout the books gives the reader something that i haven't found in any books since. Lord of the rings is very one sided gender wise however the females in Lord of the rings are in no way inferior to the males as Galadriel is one of the most powerful people in middle earth and Eowyn has a huge roll in the battle for Minas tirith. I also feel that having a larger female cast would take away from Eowyn's story as her major achievement is being a woman in a sexist society who achieves something that no man could do. this brings me onto my next point. the lord of the rings has so many moral lessons that still apply now. the ideas that no matter how small and insignificant you are you can achieve anything. or how everyone is important, or that you should not let greed overcome you, or that doing the right thing is harder and more difficult but its worth doing. There are lots of different types of fantasy however each book can only really be one or two types of fantasy. No book can appeal to everyone however lord of the rings could interest most people if they go in with the right attitude. I look forward to reading your reply :)
The Lord of the Rings are the best Fantasy novels of all time

Yes, the Lord of the Rings is very original. However, I can think of many original fantasy novels off the top of my head: The Wizard of Oz, Harry Potter, Than Phantom Tollbooth, Abarat, Anansi Boys. If i wanted too, I could go on. There are many newer, more fresh ideas and they'll keep coming. People many want more than just a fantasy epic. Maybe they want a fantasy epic with some romantic drama or just some good old fashioned drama. There needs to be a balance or you could end up loosing your reader. Another thing is this: Lord of the Rings is a bit one sided gender wise. Yes, there are female characters but there are only three. This makes it seem a bit one sided and some female readers may get turned off by that. I know I prefer a book that has a good balance of female and male characters. If you are going to write a series, you need to make sure you have some sort of balance unless you want to make a book exclusively for males females. You also have to look at the fantasy element. There are so many different types of fantasy. You have sci-fi, you have dystopian future, you have surrealist, you have steampunk and more. Some people may only want to read one certain type of fantasy so you can't say that LOTR is the best because all tastes are different. I look forward to your reply.
The Lord of the Rings are the best Fantasy novels of all time

I agree with that. As this is my first Debate i just chose something without thinking about it. i should have said "In my opinion, the Lord of the rings are the greatest Epic Fantasy novels of all time. Does anyone disagree." However since i started this Debate I might as well continue it. The lord of the rings were very original and although Tolkin took many ideas from various sources, it is fair to say that he made them his own and personalized them. Many of the Ideas from Lotr have become accepted. for example when most people think of elves they think of tall, hansom beings as described in the lord of the rings.
The Lord of the Rings are the best Fantasy novels of all time

This will be fun! I love talking about fantasy novels! While I agree, the Lord of the Rings are great, it's hard to say they are the best fantasy novels of all time. That is an extremely bold statement. Yes, they have been around for a long time but you have to remember something: everyone like something different. I could say that the Wizard of Oz books are fantastic and someone could argue Harry Potter books are the best. Books are subjective like everything. I look forward to your reply!
The Right to bear arms

I would like to begin by defining what the term "bear arms" means followed by what "right" means, assuming we are using it as a noun, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: >>bear arms 1: to carry or possess arms 2: to serve as a soldier >>right 1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2: something to which one has a just claim. 2A: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled The second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."(SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu...) This can be interrupted many different ways to many different people, but today for the sake of debating, it means to me that the United States Government will allow for individual state governments to house militia's, which in today's terms means the National Gaurd. Each state has thier own Gaurd, and the members that comprise the organization have the right to "bear arms". I feel that the amendment gives explicit permission to the state's militia to bear arms, as the II Amendment clearly states. In conjunction with my opponents opening statement, it appears as though he would agree with me from what I have just defined and expressed. I await my opponent's response.
the watchtower

I don't understand what you are contesting here? What don't you agree about in John's gospel? And how does this tie in to Jehovah's Witnesses? "I see that Jesus is also Jehovah. I do not agree with the new world translation of john1:1 where it states that the Word was "a god"." The word "Jehovah" is not an actual Hebrew word since there are "J" sounds in Hebrew. The word was synthesized from the original Hebrew word, Yahweh, which is supposed to be the highest emanation of God. As to what John is referring to, he is stating that Yeshua (Jesus) and Yahweh (God/Jehovah) are one. He is also saying that the very Word of God is God. This verse, among others, is where the concept of the Trinity come in to play. Beyond that I'm unclear on what you are desiring to debate about. Can you expound?
Sex has nothing to do with morality.

Yes, I agree with you that at this point we have essentially resolved the debate. I agree with you on the certain points which are as following.-1. Sex is a normal moral act. 2. If a being is capable of moral/ethical processing, that being is obligated to process ethically.3. Celibacy is not a moral act at all. And yes, it is masochistic and misanthropic.3. Even if separated by it's social and biological implications, it would still,as all else have to be considered a moral act.But let me be clear. I do not say that-- Sex is amoral or immoral.Celibacy is a moral act.Sex and ethics are incompatible and irrelevant from each other.But what I wanted to say is that...... Sex is a normal moral act. However, it has no additional weightage over other moral acts of humans.Celibacy has been given extra moral weightage in Indian society.Now, although I do not wish to expand this debate any further, my view of a moral act is that...............A moral act is necessarily a social act. (Here society is always a civilized society.) Moral values are the common shared values of a society which we have to accept and follow when interacting in a social environment. And as sex (natural sexual intercourse) involves two social beings and that being social act, sex is essetially a moral act. But masturbation is not if you perform it in a room where no other person is affected by what you do even if you commit an imaginary rape with somebody.
Sex has nothing to do with morality.

I think we've essentially resolved the debate at this point. Although, I am having some issues following your argument, I will try to recap for clarity, the following is my interpretation. Pro: Man is an ethical being. Ethics only exists in civilized society Human acts, sex included have a social and a private aspect. In society (in relation to others) sex has restrictions and regulations More importance given to social aspect of sex "...it can be considered a normal moral act." Number 6 is obviously where I feel the debate has been resolved. But I'm curios and slightly confused as to the rest of your arguments. Are you arguing that sex is amoral or immoral?Or, as was originally implied, that it somehow escapes morality/ethics altogether?My position continues as follows: Sex (-ual acts) are a function of nature and can therefore exist independently of morality and ethics. However, morality and ethics apply only to human acts, and if a being is capable of moral/ethical processing, that being is obligated to process (un)ethically. This applies I believe even if one exists in solitude. For example, you mentioned celibacy. On what ground is this a 'moral' act? It can not be ultimately moral because it is ultimately masochistic and misanthropic. Furthermore, even if it was the case that sex could be separated by it's social and biological implications, it would still, as all else have to be considered ethically 'good' or 'bad'.So, Does my opponent argue that sex and ethics are incompatible and irrelevant from one another?I would have to say no, as per his statement "...it can be considered a normal moral act."Or does my opponent argue that sex is an immoral act?
Sex has nothing to do with morality.

Thank you, MrJK for participating in my debate. I agree that man is an ethical being. But ethics exists only in a civilized society. Therefore, every human act has two essential aspects :the social aspect and the private aspect. Thus sex is also an act with the two aspects. Its social aspect is limited to some regulations and restrictions on sexual act. People have given the social aspect of sex more importance than to the private aspect of it. If you are hungry and there is abundance of food, and even then you can not access it as per social rules, it is all abominable and disgusting! Morality comes in oly when there is a society. Yes, sexual act is a moral act inasmuch as it needs the informed consent of the partner. But then, it matters little with whom you partner with in this act. Now at most it can be considered a normal moral act.
Sex has nothing to do with morality.

"Sex has nothing to do with morality" I believe this to be false. Although sex can and does exist without the perception or consideration of man, it is also an act of man. Whether man chooses to participate or not, he must consider it ethicaly. This debate itself is proof enough that sex is something that can be considered ethicaly. I would argue that it must. An interaction between humans whom have the capacity to consider the interaction ethicaly are compelled to do so. If you are capable of morality, you are obligated to it. My argument is that you can not separate the actions of an ethical being from ethics itself. As Sartre puts it:"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. ". http://www.marxists.org...
Sex has nothing to do with morality.

Sex has nothing to do with morality. Yes, I am now of the opinion because I have seen so many examples in the society. If morality has anything to do with sex, I think the celibates are the best moral people in the world. In India, celibacy has been glorified much and there has been a vast number of such people who practiced celibacy throughout their life but could yield nothing to the welfare of the society. Rather, their so much celibate contemplation could result only in the worst social and
The political science of climate change

Sorry, but your response is nothing more then repeating what I said which is no response at all in essence. The fact is that the IPCC has released junk data as gospel truth repeatedly, and therefore we have to look at who is funding them and what their motivation is. The philosophy of the elites like Soros, Gates, Strong and Gore is that the earth is overpopulated, and the basis behind that philosophy is that eugenics is the cure, either by taxation or by policies such as encouraging abortion. Could you try a little harder please, or do you just expect everyone to follow the 97% religion because they have endowed themselves with the ability to predict the future? The expert weather forecasters can't tell us if it will rain tomorrow with great accuracy, but we are expected to believe a small group of ideologues from the IPCC can predict something as complex as how the climate will change? Please.....
The political science of climate change

In his initial comments, CON has made several claims, which I will list here for clarity’s sake: 1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues propaganda in an attempt to “strike fear into gullible people,” with the purpose of “creating green guilt. ” 2) The phrase 'global warming’ is used by “modern eugenicists” for the purpose of reducing the population of the United States, which they see as “fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers. ” 3) Those who believe in anthropogenic global warming are being used as pawns by the “globalist elite” who are trying to limit the world population to those like themselves. These are some quite interesting claims; I look forward to CON providing evidence for them.
The political science of climate change

The propaganda issued by the IPCC in respect to 97% of scientists believing in AGW is nothing but a very successful attempt to strike fear into gullible people so they will fall in line willingly with Agenda 21. This is the science of creating green guilt, nothing more. Global warming is a term used by the modern eugenicists to reduce the population of people they see as fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers, aka Americans. Meanwhile they transfer American wealth to overpopulated countries in the name of humanitarianism, while the middle class in America gets destroyed. AGW believers are nothing but minions of the globalist elite who are using their wealth to suffocate freedom so they can have the very small population of elitists they so desire. Are you on board with Agenda 21?
The political science of climate change

I thank CON for offering his comments this final round. I will do my best to address everything that is relevant, since I have been accused of not doing so. Agenda 21 CON has accused me of not addressing Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a document prepared by the United Nations which offers suggestions on how do develop in a sustainable fashion [1][2]. It is a non-binding report full of policy suggestions of the type the UN frequently puts out [3][4]. Of course, he is correct. I did not address it because it really doesn’t fit in with any of the resolutions being discussed here. Green Guilt: the IPCC I would like to thank CON for providing some support for his claims. Unfortunately, I find his source lacking. I started to rebut each point on the page CON linked to, but realized that I would quickly be over my character limit. This sort of conspiracy theory website is akin to a Gish Gallop. Even so, it doesn’t matter, because the fact that data and reports are used for political purposes, that there are discussion on how best to present the position of the material, or that contributors to papers are sometimes determined by internal politics, does not mean that the IPCC’s purpose is to mislead people via Green Guilt. Eugenics Again, I would like to thank CON for bringing some sources to bear, even though they are again quite lacking. Recognizing that overpopulation is a real problem [5], and noting that it has an impact on other human caused problems, such as global warming, is not eugenics. Even if there were some nut-jobs proposing things such as CON suggests in the 1970s [6], this does not mean that eugenicists are prevalent today, or that they are in positions of power. Finally, that some wealthy individuals promote responsible parenthood and family planning options is not eugenics. The Elites It seems that CON has dropped the argument that so called “elites” are manipulated into believing that global warming is a real threat. Loose Ends CON has made several claims at the end of his comments that are irrelevant. He has attacked the scientific enterprise, expanded his conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, and even made the case that increases in CO2 may be beneficial. I will not be addressing these because they are not relevant to the resolutions being discussed. Final Thoughts CON made three main arguments in the first round, all of which I have addressed. The burden to demonstrate these resolutions sits with CON, and he has not met his burden, as I have shown. I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate; I don’t generally debate deniers, it has been interesting. Sources: [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [2] http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org... [3]http://www.slate.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://howmany.org... [6] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...