azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Are you suggesting that every species on earth that mankind doesn't use for survival should not be here?Evolution did not produce such an astounding diversity on earth for the consumption of one species. Yes, we have the ability to make it that way if we want, and certainly we should take responsible advantage of things that we need to survive and progress. But there is such a thing as life that doesn't exist just for humans to use up.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

"Are you suggesting that every species on earth that mankind doesn't use for survival should not be here?"let me spell it out for you :if an animal was useful to humans it would be hunted by poachers or protected by farmers.animals that get hunted by poachers get saved by the WWF
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

At first, I thought you were avoiding my question because your reply does not even being to answer it. But I thought about it for awhile and now I think I might understand what you are trying to say. Are you implying that:1. Only species that are directly useful to us become endangered, and then it is only through hunting?2. The WWF is able to save every endangered species?3. If a species is not useful to man, it is left untouched?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

1. Only species that are directly useful to us become endangered, and then it is only through hunting?2. The WWF is able to save every endangered species?3. If a species is not useful to man, it is left untouched?I think what he was saying was that pigs and other meat animals exist because we use them, and if we ceased to use them, they would stop being raised and eventually enter extinction because they have no natural environment.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

The average American lives an average of 80 years. If you're going to die anyways, you may as well eat your fill of corndogs and steak. I hear heaven is severely lacking in good meat.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

be nonvegetarians are so lucky that we can eat both veg and non veg actually in the world populion we non vegetrians are leading if we wont eat non veg or kill animals on earth animals will be more and there would be no place to humans to live they tell us cruel but they will also kill plants if we tell like that they will tell that it will grow agian but they will carrots ground nuts and many more vegetables witch grow underground one thing i want to tell that WE NON VEGETRIANS RRRRRRRRRRROCK!u guys tell any but in fornt of nonveg teast u r veg is nathing .thank you bye good luck nonvegetrains u gana lose vegetrians nanananana
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I will never be a vegetarian. As I hate the taste of most vegatables and fruit. My diet is nearly completely composed of animal products. I am well aware of factory farms, and I do disagree with their inhumane treatment though.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

.Its all about balance and the eco system and survival.Humankind couldn't have survived or evolved had they not been meat eaters.Pre-historic man was pre-dominantly a hunter . Cultivation was necessary as an alternate food supply for survival. Now Lets take the cow for eg. it was in it mutual benefit for the species to survive to be allowed to be eaten,its has helped the survival of the species. Also if everyone were just Vegetarians,there's always a high demand for milk , the cow gives milk but for her to continually provide milk she has to have more calves.If ones doesn't eat them there would be a population explosion. Do most Vegetarians not use Leather products?? or any product that is made from animal extract. If they do thats hypocritical. Coz the animal is only slaughtered for their skin so one could own a piece of fancy leather!!. By consuming the meat of the animal the death of the animal is not in vain and every part of it is being utilized in one form or the other. Man has definitely abused hes power and have resorted in unethical practices and i am not debating that.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Ask yourself this questionIf you were in a Jungle in Africa or something, and a lion saw you (this lion is very hungry) Do you think that the lion would think " Omg poor little human, I'm hungry but i feel bad for it so i'm going to go eat grass instead" OR do you think it would think "Yum. Theres a human, I'm hungry let me go eat it" If you think it would spare you then your seriously stupid.If you know that it would eat you then why should you have to spare its life, when it would be more than willing to savage you in one bite?Its the food chain, some animals eat us and we eat some animals. Thats how the world works, its not immoral to eat meat.I agree that animals should be killed differently but the world will never be perfectand someone else also said, if its wrong to kill an animal why is it right to kill a plant? Not eating meat doesnt do anything, no animal gets saved if you decide to eat tofu instead of chicken. That chicken is still dead either way, animals will still be killed whether you decide to eat meat or not, so i dont see the point? You might as well eat it cause its already dead anyways. I understand people who just dont like meat or dont feel comfortable eating it because its their choice.but those who think that eating meat is wrong and immoral are truly mentally challenged.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I sense plagiarism...
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

There are many way to get B12. The average human only requires 4 mcg of B12 per day. I can get this from a bowl of cherrios. Last I checked, cherrios are not made of meat.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I don't agree all too much with violence either, but you can only fight fire with fire.If someone is trying to kill you you aren't going to sweet talk them to stop, you're going to use whatever is necessary to save your own life. That could include violence and even taking your aggressor's life. I believe violence is only justified in self defense.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: fifty fifty

thats the thing lets say someone IS trying to kill you there are the non-violent methods of stopping that personalthough i agree partially with your arguement "self-defense" there are extremely effective non-violent methods to subduing your attacker
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Well, if you think violence is only justified in self defense a person who killed a police trying to stop him might as well say that he did so because the police was trying to shoot him.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Agree

It's not that simple, as any legal system will show. There must be good reason for me to believe that the person (in this case a cop) has an intention to kill me. Normally I would not make this assumption just because a policeman pointed a firearm at me. On the other hand, if the cop had just shot at me unprovoked, I might consider shooting him or her. Of course ideally in that situation one should aim to remove them as a threat without killing them.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

True, it's circumstances such as those where it's an exception that you shouldn't defend yourself, unless the police officers is literally trying to kill you.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I hope that people don't regard police so high that they rule out self defense options simply because of their [The police's]position of authority.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: fifty fifty

i agree partially because lets face it if you were going to court for shooting a cop non-fatally and you tried to classify it as "self defense" you are more likely to get charge with attempted murder than shooting someone else under the same circumstances.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I am interested to see the validity of the following definition of violence challenged.Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundariesallegory example:It is not considered respectful of rightful boundaries to shoot someone because of a verbal conflict. Now let's say they shoot at you and you shoot back in self defense. Were you the one who breached the boundary, or was it the person who set the precedent by shooting at you? I posit that once one person breaches a specific rightful boundary they demonstrate that (at least regarding interactions with them) that that specific, commonly accepted or rightful boundary is ok to disregard.Not as simply expressed as I would have liked but oh wellatypican
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Considerations to account for, if you will:-1) The lack of uniform boundaries, due to social development, or personal belief.2) Whether an inital breach of common codes or boundaries, in disregard, affects the moral standards of both parties or just the antagonist.3) The classic "means justifying ends" debate.I agree that violence is never justified, but I do not agree that retaliation to injustice to the degree of mortality is justified. It's a great irony in my personality, but it hearts from reason.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Beautiful, a response I will have to digest a bit in order to give a thoughtful reply. Thanx for that.1) The lack of uniform boundaries, due to social development, or personal belief.Lack of well understood boundaries, I agree acts as a strong catalyst as violence escalates and spirals out of control.2) Whether an inital breach of common codes or boundaries, in disregard, affects the moral standards of both parties or just the antagonist.It can, and all too often does, I think. But I don't think it necessarily does. One deeply committed to non-violence NEVER intends to harm anyone. They can (only through violent means) be forced to however. If I am forced against my will to harm someone, my moral standards need not change as a result, but they certainly could. 3) The classic "means justifying ends" debate.That is the predominate angle of "disagree" posters to this debate. My aim is to promote the belief that the means we employ should be as pure as the ends we seek. In the face of dangerous violence, the primary goal of the non-violent activist is to stop the violence not upstage it.I agree that violence is never justifiedpleased to meet you!but I do not agree that retaliation to injustice to the degree of mortality is justified.I am strongly opposed to capital punishment as well.It's a great irony in my personality, but it hearts from reason.I would like to understood that better.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Unlike most, you've willingly considered someone's thoughts. I only wish the governments would as well...Anyway, I am seeing a pattern on this debate, that is the inability to differentiate acts of violence from violent acts. To act voilenly does not entitle violence, it merely provokes the imagery of being sparatic and overdone. Acts of violence are...•And so in attempting to explain acts of volence, I have come across in my train of thought a definition for violence I find solid:-Violence is that which causes harm.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I am seeing a pattern on this debate, that is the inability to differentiate acts of violence from violent acts.Do you mean Violent events as opposed to violent human behavior? I think they merit a separate usage definitions.Something like : "Sudden, forceful or dangerous activity" would describe violent events not necessarily involving human behavior.But that is not the violence that one can be religiously opposed to. So to clarify, the first usage definition I wish to address with this debate is the one addressed by the following: 2 Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. ~Wiktionary 1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse ~ Merriam WebsterAnd your definition, Violence is that which causes harm. which common usage definition do you find that your definition states more clearly?Considerations (about your definition) to account for, if you will: 1.)Accidents cause harm2.)Harm is subjective. Harm to what?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Exactly! You get it! Is an accident which causes harm not violent? Is harm not relative to that which is harmed? It is my belief that violence needs no premeditation, but it may.For an example, it is true that we all die in time. One could state that hereby the nature of life is violent, because it causes harm that initially is psycological and terminally is physical. It thereby has no antagonist, and is only subjective to it's own nature; as in, that which is being harmed is what is harming itself.Understand that nothing I, or anyone else says, is final. All perspectives can change.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

short train of thought - please critiqueViolence must violate something.That "something" that violence violates is rightscertain [violent]behavior forfeits certain rights.an attacker gives up their right to not be attacked whenever they initiate an attacktherefore a defensive attack is not necessarily violentmake any sense at all?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Defining violence

I haven't read all the arguments, and this is my first posting here. So excuse any misunderstandings.I am inclined to agree with your train of thought. My preliminary formulation would be something like:"Violence is the use of physical force against another person, but only when the force used is more than that necessary to avoid a greater act of violence"This formulation is perhaps similar to the way regulations of police use of force are formulated, they are limited to the use of reasonable and proportionate force. They would argue that by following this guideline they are not being violent even in quite aggressive and heated confrontations.I support the statement "The doing of justice never requires violence" in the sense that I am inclined to consider any use of violence as inherently unjust. However I think that there are times when, for example, widespread use of force in overturning a despotic regime can be justified as preventing greater acts of violence against a population.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Defining violence

I haven't read all the arguments, and this is my first posting here. So excuse any misunderstandings.Welcome. Nice to meet you. In my estimation our dialog has begun with a couple of pretty important understandings.You are the first person (as far as I know) that I have recorded dialog with that understands how I view violence. I am glad you have tagged your argument "defining violence"I would like to end this dialog to work together with you to create Free Press Bible's glossary entry for violence. If you are up to it let me know.Thank you for your interest. Only with help can Free Press Bible be continually improved.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

haha summed it up for me. although i would say if i had a gun and someone shot at me instead of shooting back i would at least try to escape the situation instead of creating a larger situation out of the already existing situation.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Violence is never justified.......................ONLY...........................because violence shouldnt ever happen in the first place. ...A really pathetic example would be --It triggers stupid tit for tat like the ongoing shitslinging matches that go on between myself and kinda.......However i feel i am justified retaliating verbviolently to some of his posts.:)
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Are all aggressive acts necessarily violent acts........?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

No ...............................looking at my various experiences and beyond my own experiences............................................................. i dont believe so. Sorry. Hey i think you know im not going to shush there. :) Aggressive love making is a vey nice example. And i have seen aggressive end of year sales ,funnilly there are some rather violent shoppers. But more seriously , when i swore at my daughter i was passionately aggressive at my Daughter , but i was not violent. When i was at the hospital , i was not violent at doctors , nurses , staff, etc , I was agressively hurting and very hostile but not violent. The day , i was asked to leave the hospital , i was in a real state. My daughter was at this point in isolation . I had to wear a mask and was not allowed to kiss her.I had at this point already been cautioned about my aggressive emotional outbursts.Then right in my face , this doctor from her team of doctors did the eskimo kiss, rubbing her nose on my daughters nose. My daughter had no immune system and they were telling me not to kiss her , not to come near her without a mask. I had been put on my first warning the week before , so i told them i had had enough , i was reporting them.And of course , when they caught me talking to media they got nastier. They reported me. I was in a state. They have the letterheads ,they have your signature , AND THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY so they have your life in their hands.What can you do? So on this day i cooperated to leave. But they got security of the hospital to escort me. I asked to see my daughter . At the time she had a central line, with both lumens attached to blood supply. I hugged her AND GAVE HER A KISS and said "i love you , mummy go now ,love you baby." She had barely got to say "love you mummy" when the security guard yanked me from her. I dont know if it was him grabbing her mum like that or if he had snagged her central line , but her little face just broke and burst into tears. I kicked him. LOL He kicked me back. so i kicked him again. They had no reason to be violently aggressive. I had been willing to co-operate.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Utter torture! you have my sympathy.. Running into instances where established societal rank trumps your basic rights is bad enough. Add a life and death situation involving your own daughter! You must have been insane. I can relate that to a hospital experience with my daughter when she had asthmaIf you were able to go back and behave differently what would you do differently? Did you have a close relationship with a family doctor before this incident? Do you have one now?I guess it's off topic but whatever I like to discuss primary root causes for dilemmas like you experienced. I will try to frame it as a debate. :)
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Oh boy, I did have an affair with my arresting officer, a week after they charged me.He is the one that gave me the idea to watch my back from the system (despite what i already knew about its corrupt violence.),also my anger management conselor , that they forced me to see ,at their hospital , secretly assisted in me not playing into their hands. Another nurse , whose heart was there , got a transfer , before they could penalize her for caring for my plight. I am taking what measures i can to fix things a different way now. Thats why i want to do nursing.(Also private investigations are my trusted sources.) I will jump their fences , get my foot through their door and fuck them from the inside out. Of course , i will be doing it in a gentle silent fashion this time ,no kicking and cussing or screaming, So there is good chances i will succeed this time , in revealing the truth.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Did you have a close relationship with a family doctor before this incident? No Do you have one now? No ,i dont have a close relationship with a family doctor , but i will only see one doctor , who is two hours away from where i live. When i was in a car crash , three years ago , i was taken to the adult section , which is connected to the same kids hospital my daughter was in. The wife of my arresting officer , who i had the affair with , worked there. But she was not the reason for why i left the hospital over medicated , and on oversized unajustable crutches with a broken face and leg. There was no way i was letting them put me under a general.. So i went to a different hospital , after taking two days to pick one i trusted. BTW My police file is colored red , with a caution for officers to only approach me in a proffessional manor , ethical to their duty , as i have been noted to take offence to people abusing their positions of authority. btw my daughter had Asplastic Anemia http://www.marrow.org/PATIENT/Undrstnd_Disease_Treat/Lrn_about_Disease/Aplastic_Anemia/index.html  dont really want to talk any more on this anymore. Im still on the mend.So forgive me if i dont reply further.:) as It does make me angry ,that im still ,bitterly hurting.One thing i want people to realize is that while i freaked the hospital staff out for their negligence , with my emotional outrage , I made friends with children and parents of children and also even staff at the hospital. People from every race . Amongst all this aggression , there was still love and care from complete strangers. One thing that made me ashamed of not coping , seeing not only my daughter , but all these other kiddies , suffering , yet stronger than me. One little boy , his entire little body covered in plaster , tubes draining in and out of him , seen me crying ,tho his mouth was barely visible , he smiled , with his eyes , and i knew then , i was a coward.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

there are certain times it may not be justified but if someone was shooting to kill you and you were shooting at non fatal areas of the body to incapacitate that individual then your violence is definitely more justified than the person shooting to kill
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

The point I am making is that responding with dangerous or even deadly force isn't violence unless you are violating a right the person has. For example we could say that people generally have the right not to be shot at. My thinking is that they lose that right if they begin shooting at others.Can you understand my frustration with how difficult it is to make this simple point? Check the debate description...am I that unclear? I stand by my observation that most people view violence as meaning "use of dangerous force"....I think that that way of interpreting the word is suboptimal.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: fifty fifty

Violence isn't the only way to solve things, but, it's the most effective way.It's like training a dog, if your dog shits on your floor you stick his nose in it and hit and tell him no ETC. He then becomes 'house trained'.What this means is that Animals (which we are) respond to pain.As do we.I stand by that.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Agree

Violence accomplishes nothing except destruction and unhappiness.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Agree

Violence is never the answer. Violence will only cause death and destruction.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Regardless of definition, if someone is being violent towards you, you may need to be violent in order to defend yourself.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Would you mind giving a response that does not disregard definition? Particularly I would like you to critique the definition I assert on the "agree" side.respectfullyatypican