BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should grant rights to Cetaceans

True, Cetaceans are unique creatures. However, this does not justify giving them special privileges. Also, might I add, if you were to give special rights to cetaceans only, you would give rise to animal rights activists who will not stop until they get "rights" for all animals. And as for your question about cattle, I was stating under the assumption you do give rights to cetaceans, which progresses to all animals. The idea of giving rights to cetaceans would only cause animal rights activists to be more upset that you are separating the cetaceans over any other animal. What about the birds, the fish? Are we supposed to give them rights as well? Giving rights to cetaceans, in the end, would only cause people to push and push until you give special rights to the rest of the animals and before we know it, we can't do anything without having to respect the "rights" of every animal that we would be affecting. We would have to assess anything involving any animals.
We should grant rights to Cetaceans

First of all, I will explain to you why cetaceans are so unique. It is proved that cetaceans can understand grammar. For example, if a trainer of a whale said whale, ball, trainer, the whale would get the ball, and go to the trainer. But if you say trainer and then ball, the whale would go to the trainer and then get the ball. I would like to point out that just because you give cetaceans "rights", that doesn't mean you need to give all the other animals "rights" as well. For example, we wouldn't need to give bugs "rights". We are already not giving bugs enough time to live because we kill them accidentally by stepping on them while we walk. Even though you didn't intend to kill the bug you would still get charged for that? That doesn't make sense. I would like to ask a question. What does cattle's have to do with cetaceans? And please note what I said before. Thank you
We should grant rights to Cetaceans

Now, we begin. What my opponent has stated is that we give "rights" to Cetaceans, mammals best suited to live in the water. If we were to do so, the argument could be made that we give rights to all mammals, land or sea. And I would suppose that by "rights" we give them special privileges, such as those of humans. And if we are granting rights to mammals, why not just grant special privileges to all animals? Are they not equal? In order to treat all animals equally, we would have to allow for such rules. This would cause the eating of most meats to be outlawed, we can't just kill them, they have rights. Hunting, would then be outlawed. In 2009, the cattle industry attributed to $43.8 billion in income for the United States. With such rights, this would go away then due to the fact that we gave them rights we can no longer produce that money. . http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu...
We should grant rights to Cetaceans

This is a debate about granting rights to Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises in specifics. ) In case you do not know what Cetaceans are, they are mammals best adapted to aquatic life. What I mean by "Rights" is that they get basic privileges, conditions, or considerations to which a group or individual is entitled. The voting period for this debate is 1 week and the total amount to argue is 24 hours. Please note that you only get 750 characters to argue. This is going to be rather difficult but we will have to deal with it. There is three rounds. Once again this is about granting rights to Cetaceans. Thank you and please enjoy the debate.
Weed should be legal

I will build up my arguments and then refute what the negative stated. There is one point I would like to bring up. .. the affirmative didn't state for "what" the marijuana would be legalized for, public use, or private use, for medicinal purposes. So I will just assume, that he/she means that it would be public. My first contention is that if marijuana was legalized, crime would increase. Marijuana, also called Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed. This would do nothing but increase crime because if people commit crimes when they are not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, imagine the mentality of those that do. We aren't talking about drug sales/busts that the affirmative stated, but more crimes than those would happen in effect of the users. What is the difference between smoking cannabis and drinking a large consumption of alcohol? You are under the influence of something that effects the way a person thinks or asks. Things can, and will happen in effect. My second contention is that if marijuana was legalized the health and welfare of the community will be in jeopardy. The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems. Studies have shown, that people who consume cannabis are more than 5 times as likely to get lung cancer. Smoking and consuming cannabis causes an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. Imagine if something happened and the state, or the federal government approved cannabis; there would need to be some liability by the state/federal government is something does happen. Why? Because they allowed it to happen. I will not refute what the affirmative stated. He/She states that it will raise the economy. How? There was no way given that it would improve the economy form its current state. My opponent also states that people will do it anyways. This is an example of the status quo, therefore, that point is invalid. Also stated was that it would get rid of crimes and "cigs". Refer to my first contention. The affirmative states that currently in the State of California, cannabis is legalized. .. however, it is for medicinal purposes only! . .. Not just because people are bored and want to get high. If the economy did increase for just a little bit, okay, fine, it increased. However, it will not be increased for long. As stated earlier in my argument, marijuana causes the mind to change and people do things that they are influenced to because they are under the influence of a narcotic. The government would need liability if they enacted this. If people get into car accidents, people sue one for killing another because they weren't thinking straight, etc. People would sue the government, therefore the government would need to "pay up" and then where does that increased economy go? Down the toilet with winning the lawsuits. I look forward to continuing in this debate. Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.chrisconrad.com...
Weed should be legal

I stand on the pro side that weed should be legal for the following reasons 1. raise our economy 2. people will do it anyways and 3. get rid of crimes and cigs first if we legalize weed the economy will see a huge boom . As the government can tax the crap out of weed like they do in califorina one company that sells weed pays 300,000 dollars in taxes to the state of california . therefore if we tax weed it will raise the economy from taxes but also the food, when you get high you get what is called munchies or very very hungry therefore we will have buy food! Second people will still do weed as they are right now all over people do weed because its illgeal but if it were legal it wouldnt be so bad Thrid, the selling of illegal drugs would stop if weed was okay and many people would stop smoking cigs because then could smoke weed,
Weed should be legal

My opponent has forfeited this round therefore not having any arguments or refutations against my arguments. So, I shall take this time ro restate my points... My first contention is that if marijuana was legalized, crime would increase. Marijuana, also called Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed. This would do nothing but increase crime because if people commit crimes when they are not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, imagine the mentality of those that do. We aren't talking about drug sales/busts that the affirmative stated, but more crimes than those would happen in effect of the users. What is the difference between smoking cannabis and drinking a large consumption of alcohol? You are under the influence of something that effects the way a person thinks or asks. Things can, and will happen in effect. My second contention is that if marijuana was legalized the health and welfare of the community will be in jeopardy. The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems. Studies have shown, that people who consume cannabis are more than 5 times as likely to get lung cancer. Smoking and consuming cannabis causes an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. Imagine if something happened and the state, or the federal government approved cannabis; there would need to be some liability by the state/federal government is something does happen. Why? Because they allowed it to happen. I will not refute what the affirmative stated. He/She states that it will raise the economy. How? There was no way given that it would improve the economy form its current state. My opponent also states that people will do it anyways. This is an example of the status quo, therefore, that point is invalid. Also stated was that it would get rid of crimes and "cigs". Refer to my first contention. The affirmative states that currently in the State of California, cannabis is legalized... however, it is for medicinal purposes only! ... Not just because people are bored and want to get high. If the economy did increase for just a little bit, okay, fine, it increased. However, it will not be increased for long. As stated earlier in my argument, marijuana causes the mind to change and people do things that they are influenced to because they are under the influence of a narcotic. The government would need liability if they enacted this. If people get into car accidents, people sue one for killing another because they weren't thinking straight, etc. People would sue the government, therefore the government would need to "pay up" and then where does that increased economy go? Down the toilet with winning the lawsuits.
Deception about gender negates sexual consent

The resolution put forward by my opponent seeks to ban the age old practice of deception in order to engage in sexual activity. While the resolution seeks only to ban one subject of deception, the principle is the same. People lie to have sex. They lie about income, possessions, lifestyle, criminal history, and a myriad of other things. Nothing negates sexual consent except a revocation of that consent by the one who gave it. If a man takes a woman home to engage in sexual activity, only to find out that they are in fact another man, sexual conduct may continue unless that man revokes the consent.
Death penalty is bad

I will be posting my argument in sort of a timeline of events. 1948, The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which granted EVERY individuals right to life. It also states that NO ONE shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. Later on in 1966 The UN adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. Article 6 of this document states that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life". 1984, The UN General Assembly adopted the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR, which aimed at the abolition of the Death Penalty. Remember that you can NEVER eliminate the chance of executing an innocent person....
Death penalty is bad

Me, Myself I totally understand what you are saying. You have some very good solid points my friend, but I feel strongly about someone leading to execute an innocent person. Here are some ways this could happen. 1. inadequate legal representation. 2. police and prosecutorial misconduct 3. perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony 4. racial prejudice 5. jailhouse "snitch" testimony 6. suppression and/or misinterpretation 7. community/political pressure to solve a case. All of these reasons can lead to wrongful convictions. Quoted from - Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000, "I cannot support a system which, in it's administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the states taking of innocent life..... until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." The death penalty and arbitrariness. Quoted from - U.S Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, February 22, 1994 "Twenty years have past since this Court declared the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all, and, despite the effort of the states and the courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rulesto meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake." These reasons below lists their contributes to the arbitrariness to the death penalty.. 1. Almost ALL death row inmates could not afford their own attorney at trial. Court appointed attorneys often lack the experience necessary for capital trials and are overworked and underpaid. In the most extreme cases, some have slept through parts of trials or have arrived under the influence of drugs/and or alcohol. 2. Prosecutors seek the death penalty for more frequently when the victim of homicide is white than when the victim is African- American or of another racial/ethnic origin. 3. Co-defendants charged with committing the same crime often receive different punishments, were one defendant may receive death sentence while other receives prison time. 4. Approximately two percent of those convicted of crimes that make them eligible for the death penalty actually receive a death sentence. Romans 12:19 states Beloved never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
The current US two party system isn't working

"I'm not going to get into a completely different subject or argument on this issue, however, the main reason why the government isn't legalizing it has nothing to do with health effects marijuana causes or other external problems (high while driving), otherwise cigarettes wouldn't be legal." This would require a citation. However returning to the main point I'll address the fact that minor parties are not getting any spotlight. The problem here is that minor party spotlight isn't a driving force for any particular standard for instance many minor party desires are encapsulated in major parties including the legalization of marijuana (http://www.people-press.org...) with an ironic 63% of Democrats saying it should be compared to 58% Independents. Also Independents are more likely to side with jailing for possession over the same group. The notion that it is not an issue that is managed under the bicameral system is quite false and that brings me to the point where there's no substance to the idea that national issues only belong to parties and that smaller parties require a say in order to push various issues because even if a minor party is in office that is not a guarantee or even a better chance at passing anything of the sort since it is doubtable at best that an executive order could be made to legalize a substance of any sort. "If we have a multi-party system, then shrink the candidates to two people in the primaries, it could give opportunity for voters to focus less on the particular party the candidates are in."This is actually how it is at current. Multiple parties run but most are never really given any credible following partially because democrats and republicans as parties have not only notariety but most of the political investment of the country which is to say that most senators and congressmen are of these two parties and therefore the people have already invested in them as representatives; if more persons were from other parties in smaller elections perhaps there would be a shift in bigger elections.
The current US two party system isn't working

The necessity of a multi-party system isn't only for the sole purpose of "decisions being made faster." There may be many different subgroups within each political party, but there are still certain issues that the government as a whole agrees on, but the "big government" mindset isn't necessarily taking place within the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, etc. Now, what do I mean by that? Let's look at the issue of marijuana legalization. Even though it is legal for recreational use in the state of Colorado, it's still considered a federal misdemeanor. I'm not going to get into a completely different subject or argument on this issue, however, the main reason why the government isn't legalizing it has nothing to do with health effects marijuana causes or other external problems (high while driving), otherwise cigarettes wouldn't be legal. This seems off topic, but it has everything to do with the way our system is being run. That goes deeper than just Republican and Democrat. The government doesn't want to tax people if they're selling it legally. On the surface of things the current political system seems like a practical idea, and that's not to say that we shouldn't have two candidates running against each other, because that's the fairest system. If we had 4 candidates running against each other, the person who won wouldn't be what the majority voted for, just in the majority percentage itself. If we have a multi-party system, then shrink the candidates to two people in the primaries, it could give opportunity for voters to focus less on the particular party the candidates are in.
The current US two party system isn't working

The Two Party SystemI propose that the bicameral system is effective simply on the grounds that all systems eventually fall to a basic set of systems and that number tends to be low with mostly black and white contrastual thinking regardless of political vantages which in turn means that while there are a myriad of issues there is not a need for a myriad of groups to represent those issues. In the case of the American bicameral scenario you find that the Democrats, whom have subgroups of many flavors, tend towards the worker while the Republicans, whom have their subgroups as well, tend towards the investor. The interests of these two groups are usually adequately met by the two parties and morality in political science plays a role but ultimately the goals of the politicking tends to revolve around those two ideals which are key to the enterprise foundation of the country relating to Capitalism and it's foundation that "anyone can make it if they try hard enough" as an ideal. Variation of groups does tend to prevent power struggles and the like however when considering the strength of the value of the ideal ultimately it is the same problem and same bilateral condition that creates the environment. Instead of having a multiparty system that negotiates and simply tends to "even out" the effects of legislation the United States uses a system that simply punctures the issue full on with great effect.I would say that when things get done they actually get done to great effect. Stagnation is a problem in all systems of government regardless of party number and while party number can ease the effect of stagnation the cost is often effectiveness and speed of effectiveness as well as intensity.
The current US two party system isn't working

This debate is on the topic of the current political system and the way our government runs it itself. Now it seems quite vague, but there's room to narrow it down throughout your arguments as well. The two party system has created a divide in the United States. Republicans are becoming more Conservative and Democrats are becoming more Liberal. With this divide, comes controversy, corruption, and irrational anger. Both parties blame the other for the issues going on in this nation. If Libertarians, Independents, and other parties were more dominant, than people would actually be able to voice their opinion. Many people don't agree with everything their party typically agrees with, but with more freedom, will come more honest politicians. Politicians do not always vote in favor of their actually viewpoint, but what the people within their party would accept. We rely heavily on our politicians and blame each and every mistake they make. They are just people who need to represent the people, instead of being in office for popularity and recognition. Without this two party system, people would realize how much more they have in common than they thought. Nowadays, people don't actually voice their opinions rationally, but instead stereotype their opposing party as if it's the root of all evil. The party's have become people's religions, almost like cults in their severe loyalty. I'm not just discussing extremists, but the party's as a whole.
Men should have the right to give up responsibility of a child.

I am sorry but I will need my opponent to clarify what they mean by emotional consent. A parent/child relationship is not the same as a marriage contract. With a marriage contract you have to people agreeing to certain terms and when those terms are not meet there are consequence like divorce. As opposed to a parent child relationship is more out of need for a child to be cared for until such time they can care for themselves. Which is a responsibility any person not just a biological relative is capable of as long as they are a responsible person. Now if a man encourages a women to give birth to a child and then decided to leave that child and women that is a reprehensible action but is still an action that that man can take legally if they want to legally give up their right to that child. Just like a mother can give their child up for adoption at any time in their life. However, most circumstances the man would most likely give up responsibility for the child before they are born. Basically stating they don't want to be a father and don't want to care for the child. Now if the mother wants the child the burden of caring for the child would fall to her alone.
Men should have the right to give up responsibility of a child.

Accepting the challenge, I would like to open my line of argument. We, know that a pregnant woman has the right to decide whether or not a child should be brought in this world, but we also know something called emotional consent. Now we go on to prove how there is no stark difference between cheating on your spouse, which is, need I remind you, a punishable offence and is not very different from disavowing his child. When two people are married, they have a bond of trust and responsibility toward each other which they promise to fulfill for the remainder pf their lives. Now, when a person cheats on his/her spouse, it's basically breaking that bond of trust. Similarly, if the husband, with emotional consent of supporting their child in later stages, encourages the woman to bear and give birth to the child, he is as much responsible for the child as much as the mother is. Not doing doing so is a breakage of the trust that was being talked about previously. So if on one hand, breaking of trust i an offence (Cheating), so should it be on the other j=hand. Not doing so would be an unfair and an undue burden on the mother.