azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

I am not disputing this for animal rights. This is not a dispute of our evolutionary needs. Then why am I disputing this? Because if we drop The Ban Hammer on non-vegan foods the whole world WILL go down the flusher. Think of all the farmers around the world that rely on dairy and meat markets to put bread on the table. think of all the people who have no choice but to eat meat. If we ban non-vegan foods global starvation will ensue. This will evolve in riots and even wars. Also, what government is powerful enough to induct this rule? Most governments today can't even sneeze without every other guy with a gun and a flag threatening war, let alone coming together and blanket ban one of the most plentiful (and profitable) food source. And what of the people? how will the everyday person react to something so viciously taken from them, a right they have had since before the we (as a race) could even speak! Not to mention, what do we do with the people who break this rule?throw them all in Gaol? they will overflow in a matter of weeks.And last but not least, the animals. What will we do with the billions of livestock? We could not keep them on farms. It would be way to expensive to even consider doing this.Pets as well. Where will we get the meat to feed them? And we certainly cannot release these animals to the wild. This will destroy the ecosystem. And all the animals that cannot survive in the wild. Unadapted, docile animals that have no idea how to survive in the wilds, it will be a worse death than a trip to the abattoir.In conclusion, this decision is expensive, cruel to both humans and animals and an all-around unstable and unpredictable future. Thank you.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Yes! Think of the children! Think of the us! The US! (The Farm children). YOU ARE 100% PERCENT RIGHT!!!
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Being vegan only works because it is done by a small group of people. Since vegans can't get any pleasure from the food they eat they are forced to derive pleasure from telling everyone else that they are vegan. If everyone were vegan you couldn't get any pleasure from telling others you are vegan, and you are already getting no pleasure from your food. So, much of the population would go crazy from being so unhappy and many people would get hurt.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Plenty of people get pleasure from vegan foods. There are many testimonies here [1]. The palate can change. "Our tastes can and do change over time for a variety of reasons. Do you now dislike something you used to love, or vice-versa? "[2].Links.1. http://www.30bananasaday.com/page/testify-12. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ wordofmouth/2012/jun/22/changing-tastes-the-wandering-palate
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

No one wants to admit that the food that they eat gives them no pleasure. If you got pleasure from what you ate, why do you still feel the need to announce you are vegan to the world?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Let's go ahead and assume you are correct in saying that no vegan foods can give pleasure to someone, which is obviously incorrect, but let's assume it's true. If that were the case, in what world do you live in where the only other pleasurable thing besides food is telling someone about your food choice diet? How about dancing, singing, hanging out with friends, going for a night swim, watching a good movie, a good conversation, the smell of an ocean breeze, watching a sunset, and one of the biggest, having sex. Are vegans incapable of experiencing all these pleasures? No. Now if your life is excluded from all these pleasures, and the only pleasurable thing you are capable of having besides food is telling people what food you eat, I feel sorry for you man.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Are vegans incapable of experiencing all these pleasures? Apparently. They have to tell every person they meet that they are a vegan. If they were able to get pleasure from those activities why do they need to tell everyone that they are vegan? Now if your life is excluded from all these pleasures, and the only pleasurable thing you are capable of having besides food is telling people what food you eat, I feel sorry for you man.Don't tell me, tell every vegan anyone has ever met.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Telling people that they are vegan is a good thing in the way that it raises awareness and hope for the cause that one day all humans will be vegan, it has nothing to do with them getting pleasure out of it.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Why dip you guys do it in the most obnoxious way possible? Every time a normal person hears you guys talking about being vegan they want to try it even less.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

What i said was obnoxious?? If vegans do sound obnoxious when talking to other non-vegans, maybe it's because their so used to these non-vegans making retarded insults like "vegans only get pleasure from telling other people that their vegan because they get no pleasure from food or anything else hehehe".
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Vegans only got pleasure from telling people they don't eat meat way before us normal people pointed it out.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Okay so you're saying that a vegan saying to someone that he/she doesn't eat meat is the most obnoxious way possible to go about spreading the idea of veganism??
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

I get plenty of pleasure from eating vegan foods. Vegetables have more taste than meat to me. I get immense pleasure from eating vegan, without a side of guilt. So, yes I do get pleasure from what I eat, and I feel the need to announce to the world that I am vegan.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

If there was any pleasure in eating vegan it would have been part of your 8 point dissertation on the left.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

We are not suicidal and careless about Earth's commodities and essentials necessary for survival as you non-vegans are.You do not care about you, nor your family since you unabashedly contribute to global desolation with your callous pollutant lifestyle. Problem is, your lack of care affects the entire global infrastructure - which makes you immensely wicked for intentionally being the source in global destruction.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

you would think that the argument would be to change how we get non-vegan foods to be better.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

killerfrog, I have no clue what your statement means. Can you please clarify?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

I don't think this is necessary because you would cut off half of the work for farmers who help the animals and kill them for food. We need the non-vegan foods to have other extra food to a food supply otherwise we would spend the whole entire time eating foods that either are not sweet, no taste, not sour, or not salty. (depends on how you modified the food)While the vegan foods may be healthy, we would only have those type of vegetables and that's all. Meat and vegetables comes in a different way of being modified as a mix with meats while vegetables will not mix with each other and often just be separated
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

The ranchers are supporting and killing mass numbers of sentient beings intentionally. This is unjust and immoral. What makes it okay for a farmer to kill a pig, but not a human child or mentally handicapped people? Where do you draw the line? How about minorities? Is it morally sound to kill minorities WeeklyManner?Vegan food tastes fine.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Out of curiosity, what evidence have you seen that cows, pigs, chickens, goats, or sheep are sentient?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Cows, pig, chickens, and other animals are sentient based upon scientific studies. Specifically animals have sensory organs that plants don't have. "After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven " 1I would hope after 2,500 studies people would accept animal's sentience. Think of a cow, she has ears to hear, eyes to see, a spinal cord to feel, a tongue to taste, and a nose to smell. A plant has none of these.Cognition, a plant will always grow towards the sun. In opposition a cow can learn to take different paths. A memory to remember which path to take. A plant is stuck with its innate genetic code always growing towards the sun. Animals have the ability to move and to eat. A cow can find one type of grass sweeter than the others and move towards the stimuli. Pain can teach the cow to avoid other stimuli and move away from it. A plant is stationary thus there is no reason for a plant to feel pain. Even a bee has a brain "The head houses the brain, a collection of about 950,000 neurons." 2The old saying, no brain, no pain. Well bees have brains and so do other farm animals. Bees have antenna and eyes.Here's additional reading on bee's sentience.34
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

If one goes with the definition of sentience "the ability to perceive or feel", then it does not matter which types of sensory organs an organism has; they can still feel. This means that plans, by nature of having sensory organs, are somewhat sentient. As are "lesser" organisms, such as some forms of molds and bacteria.So where do you draw the line?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Its harder to prove a negative, yet I'm pretty sure plants don't have sensory organs. I contend that plants are not sentient and animals are sentient. If you look at the studies done on plant sentience, it basically comes down to plants respond to stimulus and have genetic material that is passed on from generation to generation. I find this insufficient to prove plant sentience.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

http://resources.boseinst.ernet.in:8080/ xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/74/CH-26-p.103-104-Sense-organ-of-plants.pdf?sequence=27 They certainly do have sensory organs, but you don't find them sufficient to be referred to as creating sentience. So I am asking where you draw the line in terms of sensory organs.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Animals are sentient, plants are not. Even if plants were sentient this is a Tu Quoque fallacy. Furthermore, vegan diets kill less plants. It takes more grain to feed a cow and then to eat the cow as opposed to eating the grain directly. Finally, you arguing that animals don't have sentience at the same time arguing that both plants and animals have sentience. This is kettle logic.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Animals are sentient, plants are not.You have repeated that without proven it. I have provided you an argument that you have clearly dismissed. Even if plants were sentient this is a Tu Quoque fallacy.Not really. If your argument is against one diet because it kills sentient life, then pointing out your diet kills sentient life isn't tu quoque.  Furthermore, vegan diets kill less plants. It takes more grain to feed a cow and then to eat the cow as opposed to eating the grain directly.That's actually your best point thus far. Meat truly is very inefficient. Finally, you arguing that animals don't have sentience at the same time arguing that both plants and animals have sentience. This is kettle logic.Except I haven't done that. I have called into question whether or not animals have sentience, while pointing out that by your standards plants are sentient.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

"Animals are sentient, plants are not.You have repeated that without proven it." Genericname  I have already supply lots of sources that are scienfic that state that animals are sentient. As for plant sentience I can't prove a negative.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Yet we need to resort to anything to eat for a food supply for the earth. If we use vegetables, we would have too much ground about the plants. This also goes for animals, if we let them repopulate themselves fast, they will go everywhere and take too much ground, too. And vegan food does taste fine for CERTAIN people. This goes for meat too. So if you want to remove some of the food supply for the earth, then might as well take up more ground. And if you mean minorities as young animals getting killed, it only happens if it's a needed situation on low food supply. So do you want ground often being used as food or perhaps be an omnivore like everyone else would be if they needed to be.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Certain foods are more detrimental to the environment than others. Cows for instances should be the first animal to be banned from being slaughtered, since they are incredibly inefficient.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Animals AND vegetables can harm the environment still. And of course animals will get harmed, but I don't imagine them getting harmed "all the way" dead. Despite the fact you can't eat some of the same foods over and over and over, so let me bring this up again: omnivores.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

"Animals AND vegetables can harm the environment still. And of course animals will get harmed, but I don't imagine them getting harmed "all the way" dead." WeeklyMannerWhat are you talking about? If you eat a hamburger, of course a cow had to die for that burger.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Someone will just make a company called Vegan Foods but produce and sell the products that were originally banned because loopholes.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

That is a separate issue. Rich people find all sorts of loop holes in the tax codes. This doesn't make it right or just.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

It's pertinent. What's the point of banning the foods if they'll just go back on the Market? Lots of time money and effort wasted if you ask me.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Why is dog fighting illegal? Just a waste of effort, people find loopholes.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

So you agree that banning non vegan foods is a waste of time.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

My opposition to animal products are the methods used to obtain them. If worldwide bans were a thing, I would support one on factory farming, but not on animal products in general.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope, so it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? NopeI disagree. If you have an isolated group of people, all who only have ties within the group, and executed them in such a way to be both painless and with no knowledge of the demise of their group-mates, I see no objection on the grounds of immorality.it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.There are animal products that don't require the killing of an animal. For example, I could raise chicks with the care I would kittens, and once ready, I could collect and consume their savory menstruations without having caused anything to suffer.I would like to note that I never used the words "humane" or "execute/slaughter", so your objection doesn't really seem aimed at me.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Stryker I'm certain you are almost entirely alone on the first claim.As for the 2nd the profit motive is at work. People who use cheaper and more inhumane methods will have the advantage.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Stryker I'm certain you are almost entirely alone on the first claim.That Vegan, is not an argument.As for the 2nd the profit motive is at work. People who use cheaper and more inhumane methods will have the advantage.Odd, it seems you are now supporting my original argument for this debate. Not sure how to respond.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Stryker, The idea of mass murdering human beings appalls me, even in the conditions you listed. I see no way that this could possibly be humane. "As for the 2nd the profit motive is at work. People who use cheaper and more inhumane methods will have the advantage.Odd, it seems you are now supporting my original argument for this debate. Not sure how to respond." StrykerOn the contrary. What I am saying is a ban is a clear line in the sand. By only banning factory farming, people will always be tempted to put profit above animal welfare. This is why animal welfare fails and abolishment is better.  By banning factory farming but allowing small, organic, so called "humane", and free-range farms you introduce a conflict of interest. The animal's welfare versus profit. Abolishment has no such disadvantage.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

The idea of mass murdering human beings appalls me, And? An action that isn't immoral can be seen as appalling.even in the conditions you listed. I see no way that this could possibly be humane.Humane? That isn't what I'm talking about, not sure why you keep bringing it up?What I am saying is a ban is a clear line in the sand. By only banning factory farming, people will always be tempted to put profit above animal welfare. This is why animal welfare fails and abolishment is better.By banning factory farming but allowing small, organic, so called "humane", and free-range farms you introduce a conflict of interest. The animal's welfare versus profit. Abolishment has no such disadvantage.This is a poorly structured argument. Both "abolition" and "animal welfare" would be laws, and some people will put profit above legal retribution, so they both fail for the same reason. You talk about the welfare of animals like it's something most people care about, they don't and legislation won't change that. This is a question of Profit vs. Law.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Your food is your choice and my choice is mine. As long as we agree to work together to stand up 4 what is right like hating homosexuality, we can all be friends.
Debate: Obama
Side: Pro obama

I think that obama is a good choice! Even though i did vote for mccain. I see the light now! He will create affordable healthcare, and no it wont be government healthcare! And he is focused on the middle class as well! even the stimulus bill was a good idea!
Debate: Obama
Side: Anti Obama

even the stimulus bill was a good idea!You do realize that it was Bushes idea, right?
Debate: Obama
Side: Pro obama

No the TARP was done by the Bush administration and the 2009 stimulus was Obama's"No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill." (and that includes Arlen Specter who became a democrat)
Debate: Obama
Side: Anti Obama

Obama is another Hitler. There is not an ounce of capitalism or freedom in him.Why won't anybody in the media talk against him?Its because of the fairness doctrine. You're not allowed to speak against him.Stop listening to the liberal media.
Debate: Obama
Side: Pro obama

Obama is another Hitler.So what you're suggesting is that president Obama believes in lebensraum, volk, the supremacy of the white, Aryan race, and Roman architecture, has instituted various propaganda institutions geared at instigating a cult of youth, accepts that eugenics must begin in order to purify the white race, believes that non-Germans should have no rights, and Jews are the curse of the world leeching off of the German people and is shipping them off to ghettos, and then concentration camps to have them killed in the millions? Really? Obama is another Hitler?There is not an ounce of capitalism or freedom in him.Capitalism hasn't been practiced since the early 20th century. It didn't work and nobody liked it.Why won't anybody in the media talk against him?Faux noose?Its because of the fairness doctrine.The fairness doctrine only dictates that controversial issues need honest and fair coverage.Stop listening to the liberal media.Yeah! Next thing you're going to do is tell us to go to tea party rallies where we can talk about seceding from the union and show how revolutionary we are by angrily discussing how Fascist-Socialist-Communist the current president is!!!
Debate: Obama
Side: Pro obama

You do realize that you've also called his a socialist, right? Fascism and socialism are on opposite sides of the political spectrum Consistency is my friend, I could introduce you if you'd like!
Debate: Obama
Side: Pro obama

you do realize that the fairness doctrine hasn't been in effect for more than 23 years, right?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Debate: Obama
Side: Anti Obama

"Obama is another Hitler"I agree did you know obama is an anagram of hitler all you got to do is change a few letters and stick another ino=hb=ia=tm=la=eralso some complete noob(probably with puppet accounts)(also probably in league with qymosabi)is down voting all the anti-obamas and up voting all the pro-obamas
Debate: Obama
Side: Pro obama

I'm shocked! People are downvoting your Obama has almost the same number of letters as Hitler argument... they must be Nazis.Uh-Oh, George has exactly the same number of letters as Hitler - does that make him more like Hitler than Obama??
Debate: Obama
Side: Anti Obama

but did you know obama's supporting the building of an islamic culture centre  at the site if the twin towersalso did you know that his aunt is an illegal immagrant living in the U.S not working but getting benifits.(so in other words your taxes are paying the upkeep of barrack obamas aunt)
Debate: Obama
Side: Anti Obama

are you some sort of puppet account or some thing because this is your only argument
Debate: Obama
Side: Pro obama

um - if you click on a person's name you can see their other arguments (of which I have a few hundred). I'm not one of those people that sits on here all day every day, but I'm certainly no puppet account.
Debate: Obama
Side: Anti Obama

"(of which I have a few hundred). "if you had a few hundred you would have a few hundred points instead of just 14