azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

Whether it is an animal or not individual people are capable of making their own coherent decisions on what they think is wrong or right. If someone likes it then it is going to be hard to stop them from eating foie gras. A ban will only cause them to go around legal boundaries to find and eat it so i don't see as putting a ban on it as solving any problems. Strictly speaking it is an individuals right to eat what they choose and no one should be able to tell them that their personal preferences are not up to them
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I don't think anyone has the right to tell us what we can eat, or what we can serve in a restaurant, but I do have a problem with the force feeding of the ducks. In my opinion, it is just wrong, I mean, how would you like someone to force feed you?
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

We have been eating animals for a very long time now. I do not believe it is cruelty I believe it is the way of the food chain. We should be able to choose what we consume, it is our bodies not the governments. They cannot own what you consume.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

There are lots of things humans have been doing for a long time but it doesn't make them right when it comes to animal cruelty.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I Agree it is just one more thingfor thr government to control. I donot agree with the pain the animal may have to endure but as long as humans are not being eatin then we should be fine but Duck is an animal and like the food chain we are above so be it.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I really don't think the government should have any kind of power over what we sell. I see a lot of comments about prolonged misery for animals. If we really want to talk about animal cruelty, should the government then also ban the eating of beef, chicken, or pork because the animals are pretty much tortured by poor diets and crowded living areas before they are slaughtered which ultimately brings them pain, no, so why is eating the liver of another animal all of a sudden considered cruelty? I think people should be able to eat whatever it is they want to eat, its how the food chain works. That is my thoughts on this subject anyway.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

If so many people agree animals are abused in the food business, why when one food is finally banned because of cruelty it raises an uproar? Perhaps if more people were for the ban of cruelty it would eventually come to include all animals.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I have a difficult time with the fact that our government has their hand in anything these days let alone, what we eat! The city of Chicago has no right to ban foie gras. Different cultures, religions, households and communities eat different things. Does this mean that we will ban peanut sauce for Thai food or red wine for communion? Last time I checked, I was the one who made the decision on what I was going to eat for dinner. If I wanted to eat some duck liver then that is what I would do! I am sorry but no one has the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot eat. As Brie mentioned, this would be just the beginning of a whole list of free acts the government would take away from us if this sort of action is allowed to go on. It is time for society to stand up for what they feel is right and to say 'NO' when it comes to the government making decisions for us.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I believe society is standing up for what is right by banning animal cruelty. People would not stop animal cruelty unless it was made into a law and enforced by the government. Eat all the humanely prepared gizzards and animal corpses you want, no one is stopping you.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

What is really being debated here? Is it the cruelty to animals? Or can it be governmental intervention? I believe it is both and these are really to separate issues. Therefore with that being said let us rationally look at issue one which is the cruelty aspect of this discussion. To slaughter animals and leave their rotting bodies to waste seems rather cruel. To use the animal for consumption does not constitute cruelty but usefulness. If you torture an animal before you eat it would obviously constitute improper treatment. Are you seeing my progression here? The issue becomes relevant by what you or the government consider mal treatment of an animal that can be consumed by a human being.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

The city has not wright to ban food and they have come to their senses and voted to repeal the law.The alderman whom Mayor Daley derisively calls Joe "Foie Gras" Moore (49th) now knows how the geese and ducks feel.Two years after the City Council banned the liver delicacy made by jamming a steel pipe down a bird’s esophagus, Daley essentially did the same to Moore on the City Council floor. By a vote of 37-6, the foie gras ban that Daley claims made Chicago an international laughingstock was repealed, thanks to a legislative end-run that set a new standard for violating protocol and rolling over the opposition.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I believe that all animals were placed here for human consumption and i find it hard to understand when laws are enacted to restrict their consumption. Animals should not be abused but we should be able to eat a food that dates back many generations.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I think that the point of the ban is the abuse. People used to butcher animals alive instead of killing them first, and that was banned.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

The gov't has taken too much athority in what they allow and donot allow already... many issues are not even open to us for debate noe voting i strongly oppose the gov't in the element for which it now stands, against the people in general is much to controlling already..
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

The government has absolutely NO right to ban any type of food. We as Americans should get off ous lazy a*% and take a look at what rights we are losing everyday. The government is taking away our rights and freedoms right in front of our noses. I believe that if we dont stop the government from sticking its nose where it dosen't belong on something as infinitesimal as this. Then we will be waking up to much larger ban's and government control on things that actually matter.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

The government does not have the right to tell people what to eat. The more the government extends its power the more powerful it will become. I do not agree about eating Foie Gras but it is my right to decide to eat it or not. It is not the governments concern; it has nothing to do with the government what I choose to eat. There are so many other issues that the government should be concerning itself with. It is a total waist of power and the taxpayers money for the government to be concerning itself about what the taxpayers are eating. There are far more better things the government should be doing to help the American public.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I do believe it is the "people", the taxpayers, who want foods monitored by the government to ensure food safety. Animal cruelty is part of the monitoring system put in place by people concerned with farmed animal rights.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I think it should be the American's choice as to whether or not he or she wants to eat Foie Gras. This goes for any food.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I think it's wrong to ban it, it wont make any difference in the manufacture of the stuff, if people want it all they have to do is get it from outside city limits, you can even get it off e-bay and it will be delivered so all their doing is removing one item from restaurant menus and grocers shelves making it harder for them to make a living. If their trying to make a moral stand why not also ban McDonalds and all food that is not organic. What about medicines and Cosmetics that have been tested on animals I bet these are still all available within city limits.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

Out of interest is this ban for all Foie Gras or just Gavage Foie Gras, an outright ban on all of it is just stupid as it is only Gavage Foie Gras that is made by force feeding the animal.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I've never even heard of Foie Gras, but if it is animal meat, what gives them the right to ban it? I've eaten heart, liver, tongue - I don't care for the taste, but I would never ban it.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

Foie Gras is an enlarged duck liver. The duck has been force fed corn to the point where it can cause health problems. I don't think the government should have a right to ban food just because they want to, but I do think that when animal cruelty is involved, they should step in. :)
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

If they are torturing them to get the food just the way that they like in, then it should be banned.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

what about killing them? do you eat meat? Because these animals arent abused pets, they are raised for food, and are killed to be eaten, so i think the abuse really becomes arbitrary...
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

Killing them is fine, I'm not against that. But rather, torturing them before killing them - that is what I'm against.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I can see what your saying. it does seem like a solid argument. i see it differently though. cause i see killing as worse than torture. I mean if they are dying anyways i see no reason they shouldnt be tortured. cruel to say but it really isnt going to matter...
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

Why give them even more pain? Would you want to be horribly tortured and mutilated before finally succumbing to your death?
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

LKitchen, let me ask you this, would you be ok with them being tortured if they weren't killed? I understand your opinion that killing is the worst form of mistreatment. But we're talking about a tube being shoved down an animal's throat to force feed it over a prolonged period of time, causing the liver to swell to uncomfortable sizes before it is finally killed weeks later. Granted animals don't have the consciousness that we do (a 3-legged dog doesn't seem to care but a 3-limbed human is devastated) but you can't tell me that they don't feel pain.It's not only cruel to say that it's ok to torture something before killing it, it's inhumane. I know it's a little hippy cliche but do you hold that same principle for yourself? Would you not mind being tortured over a prolonged period of time before being killed? What if I could stop it? According to your logic it doesn't matter because you're dead anyways so why should I bother?I just don't understand how you can be so passionate about how bad it is to kill, but then say it doesn't matter if they're tortured or not.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

I've heard some say that Fox News isn't "Right Wing enough."My opinion is that it's fact, skewed by a strong opinion.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

And just what about all those other 'Ultra left wing stations'? They, too, are skewed by strong 'left' opinion.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Reality seems to have a natural Liberal bias. That's why Conservatives seem insane and self-contradicting.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Propaganda, It's a joke how some people can be brainwashed apparently into or pretend (hopefully) that fox news presents anything but a sham and what is laughed at and discarded by everyone else.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

I believe they cherry pick news just like I believe MSNBC does with their news. That's why if you want the real new you must look outside the US media.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Neither

HAHA.Look outside the country?!? That only confirms FNC's arguments! Look at Europe! Their own leaders are begging for less bias. Your argument is based on sand.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Who in Europe is saying that??????????????????????????????????
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Fox News is SO right-wing. They criticize Obama for doing the same things that Bush did during his administration, and praised him then. They distort the facts and don't "just ask questions".
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

News on Fox, when did this happen? Hollywood stars are lined up for tryouts. Fiction is better than fact and ratings are what they are after. If simpletons didn't exists neither would Fox.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Fox news is conservative, and nearly everything else in media is liberal such as NPR, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, etc.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Fox news regularly spreads misinformation, under the guise of fair and balanced. There are whole websites that exist only to fact check fox news and point out blatant misrepresentations of political information.http://mediamatters.org/http://www.newshounds.us/http://foxnewsboycott.com/tag/lies/If you spend any time reading this stuff, you can only come to the conclusion that fox news is the antithesis of journalistic integrity, with a blatant ideology, yet they use slogans like "fair and balanced" or "we report, you decide". It is so ridiculously absurd and obvious, yet we have a large segment of our population without the ability to objectively process information, that buys their propaganda, hook, line and sinker.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Not being from America (USA) It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who actually take this station seriouslyIt was also scary to hear of a poll where more Americans liked the Colbert show and what it stood for beliving that it wasnt a spoof than those who got the joke (Granted that I havent checked out this poll and dont know if the poll itself was some sort of hack job or a spoof for that matter)
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Both Fox news and the Colbert Report are fake, and both are hilarious. The Colbert Report does it on purpose, and understands the joke, while Fox News is taken seriously, by themselves and those who watch it religiously. I think they're both pretty good to watch on a down day if you need a laugh, but do get a nasty aftertaste after watching fox.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

In spite of what you may want to believe..., most Americans don't have liberal views. Which is what makes it the best country on the planet ;)
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

That's not what the popular vote in 2008 said. A lot of people in the U.S are liberal.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

Let's see what the popular vote says in November ;)
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

"It was also scary to hear of a poll where more Americans liked the Colbert show and what it stood for beliving that it wasnt a spoof than those who got the joke"That's a bunch of crap. Nobody thinks that show is real.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

That's a bunch of crap. Nobody thinks that show is real.http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212 Irony is lost on some people.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

I would like more detail on that "poll". Did they actually see the show? It sounds fixed to me. Seems like it's just a strawman to make people on the right look dumb.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

So you're suggesting that a small group of Political Scientists from Ohio State University performed a study on biased message processing of political satire and had it published in a respected Politics Journal hosted by Harvard, and had to undergo a strict peer-review process necessary for all academic journal articles, simply to create a strawman (of what argument?) that would result in making conservatives "look bad"?Really?Here's what happened. The researchers studied how people perceived and understood (or misunderstood) political satire based on political slant. The researchers studied sample exhibited perceptions that they recorded as is, and provided data in the article. If the intent was to make conservatives look bad, the study wouldn't have been published and would have failed the peer-review process.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Did you actually read the abstract? The viewers knew they were watching satire, their job was to determine how much Colbert actually meant it, and they did so in varying ways based on their own political beliefs. "conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements."
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Nobody should have to think that fox is real..........................................................................
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

While I don't fully agree that Faux News is "Ultra Right Wing Propaganda", I also don't feel there is a network on your boob tube that presents anything factual without a spin.If you want facts, you watch/read a story and then do your due diligence to verify the veracity of the story. If you're too lazy to do that...you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Propaganda, and history will prove it. I'm not going to bother explaining because I've had this argument before, and there is no reasoning with those who are not used to reason.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

If the station is right-leaning, that's fine. All information is subject to interpretation. But their neoconservatism and presupposed moral righteousness that they derive from association with the christian right is unsettling. All of this I would be able to at least ignore, but when they claim to be fair and balanced, that's pure conceit used to cover up their right leaning agenda.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

The station is no doubt right-leaning, and while that may not initially be a problem because like you say, all info is subject to interpretation. I laughed when i first saw them advertising their "fair and balanced" bull. What a sham! The liberals they do have on their show are watered down and they are probably friends behind the camera anyways. If their viewers don't know that Fox is conservative then again i underestimate the people on this planet. To make them more biased, they derive their ideology from their religious roots. Hannity has said this on his show multiple times.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

Exactly what evidence exists to support this claim? A regular viewer of the show would note that the debates featured on the broadcasts contain members of both sides of the debate, regardless of the context. Even the hosts of commentary such as The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and The Glenn Beck Show invite guests with whom they disagree. Claims such as those that Fox News is owned by the Republican National Committee are completely false. Perhaps we would have seen monetary evidence of that. Indeed, the network is owned by News Corporation.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Watch this movie and tell me that fox is not ultra right wing propaganda.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428#
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Obvious propaganda. It's been proven that they shorten video clips to make the clip seem bad.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Fox News just plain annoys the piss out of me, no argument about it. hahaAnd so does MSNBC!
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

I like to get my news from multiple sources around the world. That includes looking at the fox website now and again, but i usually end up criticising in the comments. If you read multiple articles, you can ascertain the unbiased facts and form your own opinion.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Neither

Grow up and listen to yourself. Fox presents information (news and opinions) you need to accept or refuse the information. Get your mind into the game and don't listen to others for information (fact or opinion) and then you'll see this is a BS question from both sides.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

It’s obviously propaganda, but all media is propaganda in the United States. It’s a consequence of free press, and I personally can live with it. I just laugh off biased news reports I hear— Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC alike.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: they all are propaganda

All the news stations have an angle. Fox from the right, MSNBC and CNN from the left, and no one standing in the middle. The thing that no one realizes is you have to get you information from more than just one source then make up your own mind.