azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

There is no predator curbing the human population significantly. That is what I meant.In other words, animals don't have the mental capacity to see death from the same "morally unacceptable" perspective you see it from. And yet you are still trying to project your hung ups about death onto them.This is exactly my point. Non-humans don't have the ethical and moral principles to choose to not cause suffering. We do. If we forsake those principles, what does that make us?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Those principles are there for you to use when dealing with your fellow human beings, because they are the only living things that recognize them and use them just like you.Animals don't understand morality. But if you want to use that morality to make their lives a little better then by all means, treat them well, and find painless ways to kill them for food. That way, they are still being treated just like they would be treated in the wild (eaten for food) but in a non-torturous way.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

That's still declaring that their lives exist solely for your benefit.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

You said it, sistahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

yeah meat is murder but it is the way of life. how we do things is how we do things. im not saying murder is right but im not saying no body should eat meat people should eat what they want to eat as long as they are not breaking any laws.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Yes, animals are alive, but so are plants! So suggesting that meat is murder would also say that vegetables are murder. Therefore, we shouldn't eat any food and we should remove ourselves entirely from the food chain!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Vegetables are not sentient. Animals are.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Plants have a nutritive soul and they react to different stimuli, like light, wind, and temperature. They can also grow in different directions depending on these factors and most are grown against gravity, in fact. They may not be sentient, as animals are, but they can still "feel" and react.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

lol, what? They're frikin plants! They have no brain. They are incapable of thought or emotion. Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that plants carry the same moral weight as animals?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

No. I'm just pointing out that eating a vegetable is destroying life just as much as eating a steak. I have no problem with vegetarianism/veganism, but I see them as unnecessary. Human beings are the master species and we have control over this world and it is our job to take care of it AND ourselves. Meat is essential to many people's diets, like mine, where I want a lot of protein. Sure, you could get these things in other foods, but we have the power to digest meat, just like a cougar or a bear.Besides, don't you realize that I don't care if an organism can think? Remember our little debate about abortion? :)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Even if vegetables are sentient and can feel pain, eating solely vegetables directly is killing far less of them than it would by funneling them through the animals of the meat industry. If one day somebody can prove that vegetables can feel pain, I will maintain my vegan diet for this reason.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Protein powder is better than meat. It's cheaper, has no fat, and is designed to be more easily absorbed by your body. And it doesn't require the killing of animals.Killing an animal destroys just as much life as killing a plant? By that logic killing a human destroys just as much life as killing a plant. Again you're failing to distinguish between biological life and sentient life.So you don't care if an organism can think? Why is killing wrong again? In the abortion debate you said, "We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain."Well, plants can't feel pain. Animals can.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Animals are not human beings. They do not have rational souls and are on this earth because some of them are prey and others are predators. We just happen to be special animals, with logic and reason, that are predators.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I read that as "It's ok to kill animals because God made things that way."So you're falling back to blind faith, huh?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

No. I said some animals are prey and some are predators. We are predators at heart. We can also digest plants for when meat isn't readily available, but I believe we are predators first and foremost. Why else would we have evolved thought, thumbs, carnivorous teeth, etc? If you have the necessary anatomy to eat meat and you can eat meat, then eat meat! I'm not going to give up something that I was made to do. :)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

So if you can do something, do it? That is the absolute worst argument for anything.You believe that human anatomy is created to eat meat? Hmmm, let's take a look.Carnivores: have clawsHerbivores: have no clawsHumans: have no clawsCarnivores: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongueHerbivores: perspire through skin poresHumans: perspire through skin poresCarnivores: have sharp front teeth, with no rear molars for grindingHerbivores: no sharp front teeth, with rear molars for grindingHumans: no sharp front teeth, with rear molars for grindingCarnivores: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quicklyHerbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body lengthHumans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body lengthCarnivores: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meatHerbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a carnivoreHumans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a carnivoreCarnivores: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruitsHumans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruitsCarnivores: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grainsHerbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grainsHumans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grainsYes, humans are obviously created to eat meat....
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

So if you can do something, do it? That is the absolute worst argument for anything.And yet, that is exactly what you are advocating...What you are saying is: if you can live healthily on other foods other than meat, then you should do it.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

That's out of context. Clearly, it was meant to refer to destructive behaviours.e.g.,If you can drop an atomic bomb, do it.If you can adopt an animal, do it.If you can kill millions of sentient beings per year, while simultaneously endangering your health and harming the planet, do it.If you can volunteer at a soup kitchen, do it.Do you see the difference?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

The logic is still the same regardless of whether you agree with the content. Which is why telling people to not eat meat because they can live on other foods is as strong an argument as telling people to drop bombs because they can.The fact is, we wouldn't be having this argument at all if we were Eskimos. Right?Your opinions are only valid and honorable as long as there is a supermarket nearby for you to buy your vegan alternatives. Right?If the food industry hadn't progressed to the point where you can get your protein from a powder and other vitamins from pills, then you wouldn't be so tough and preachy on people that eat meat.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Yes, it is true that we have the ability to abstain from meat because we have the wonders of the Internet and modern supermarkets, at least in many places over the world. But... why, exactly, do we need protein powders and vitamins from pills? There is absolutely no vitamin or mineral that you can't get from vegetable sources.I wouldn't consider myself "tough and preachy." It's a debate. I'm debating. No need to be defensive.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

The number one source for protein is Meat, Poultry, Fish and Eggs. You can also get protein from Vegetable protein foods such as Nuts and Seeds, Soya products, Beans, and some Dairy products.From the above, protein from animal sources contains the full range of essential amino acids needed from an adult's diet. The best one being Poultry and Fish because they contain less fat than red meat.Plant sources, however, don’t contain the full range of essential amino acids and so are not as high in nutritional value as animal protein. But it's still possible to consume the required amino acids, by eating a well-balanced diet that contains a variety of different foods. Which is why a lot of vegetarians complement their diets with powdered protein and vitamin pills. So, taste aside, you can be more certain that you have it all in your diet if you eat white meat than if you eat only the vegan alternatives.That's from the BBC healthy living website, I didn't make it up.There is consequences if you don't have any fruit and vegetables in your diet. What makes you think that there is no consequences if you exclude meat? We are not meant to eat from just one group of foods. Why do you think doctors are so skeptical about not eating meat at all? You can make a case about the standards of animal welfare, and the living conditions in farms etc. I'm totally with you on that one. But that is entirely different to telling people to stop eating meat. Preaching is to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action. Which is why I think this is nothing short of preaching.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Copied from another debate of mine:"Most amino acids are produced by our bodies and no amino acids can be "implemented." All essential amino acids (the ones our bodies don't produce) can be found in plants. The idea of combining foods to obtain "complete proteins" was passed over in the '70s; scientific knowledge moved on from that theory almost 40 years ago. And if you really want a complete protein, look no further than quinoa and amaranth, two plant sources."Doctors are skeptical about cutting out meat because there isn't a lot of information about/support for veg*n diets. Meat is detrimental to your health; there's no doubt about it. That isn't opinion. Vegans, on average, live six years longer than omnivores.I'm an abolitionist. Animals are not meant to be used by humans.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Red meat is detrimental to your health (in large quantities), but white meat is actually very healthy. Anything in large quantities is detrimental to your health, even beans.The reason the doctors are skeptical about a diet that completely excludes one group of foods is because we still don't know the full consequences of a vegan diet. What we DO know however, is that if you eat a bit of everything in moderation then that is a good thing. So, personally, I see a risk with vegan diets. Why would I want to impose that risk on everybody else?I'm also interested in something else. How do you see the ideal world in your mind? Humans are not allowed to eat animals, but its OK for other animals to eat animals? Or should we go around taming every lion and every tiger in the wilderness to prevent and stop ALL killing for food?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

What separates humans from non-humans is the ability to make ethical, moral, and logical decisions. I believe in the abolition of the use of animals, both human and non-human. It's that simple.What do you mean, "we still don't know the full consequences of a vegan diet"? Veganism has been around for... over six decades, as I believe it was founded in the 1940s, although I may be wrong.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

You doubt the abolition of the use of animals? Really? What about blind people's guide dogs? Should we abolish them? What about police dogs? Should we abolish them? What about the mice used for cancer research drugs? C'mon, face it, animal life is NOT equal to human life. You would rather test a very dangerous drug on an animal first before you give it to a human and risk killing them instead. And where do you stop with the "use" of animals? Is it acceptable to use cows for milk? Or sheep for wool?Oh, and, veganism may have been with us for a "whopping" six decades (basically since supermarkets came around), but meat-eating has been with us for thousands of years. So you can't tell me that we know as much about being vegan as we do about meat eating.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I do believe in abolishing guide dogs. I've never considered the matter of police dogs, but as I don't believe in breeding, I suppose that line of working animal would also eventually come to extinction. I am absolutely against researching on animals for any reason. Testing on non-humans gives no indication whatsoever of potential effects on humans. There are far more humane ways of testing drugs; on groups of cells, for example. Animal testing is absurd.No, I do not believe it is acceptable to use cows for milk or sheep for wool in areas that it can be avoided. I believe that all sentient life is equal and none of it is meant to be used for any purpose other than its own life.Meat-eating is a long tradition that, yes, we know a lot about. But only in (relatively) recent years has nutrition information really been available. So while we know a lot about meat-eating, we know a hell of a lot about veganism, too.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

OK so let me get this clear in my head. You would rather blind people not benefit from the help of a dog that is otherwise well fed, and loved, and trained to do something very useful...Yeah... Fuck those blind people. Set the dogs free!You would rather have no pre-testing of drugs on animals whatsoever, and instead inject them to human patients and pray that nothing goes wrong... All those doctors that have used mice to gather data on new drugs are basically idiots. Yeah... Fuck those cancer patients. Set the mice free!Also, all those poor third world country farmers should stop using horses and cows to help in agriculture. Their families should stop using the wool off the sheep to clothe themselves. They should also stop milking the cows for milk for their children. We can send them powdered milk and synthetic clothes right?Yeah... fuck those farmers... and their children. Set the horses and the cows free!At this point I think it has become evident that we have some HUGE differences in opinion, to the point that I don't think it serves anything to continue the debate. But I am more than thankful to have engaged in it because I truly needed some insight into the mindset behind this debate's slogan. Please don't take this post as an attack towards you. As a human being I love you as much as I love all my neighbors and having different opinions has never made me perceive people with an un-friendly eye. Some of your opinions on other debates have expressed my ideas as well.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Guide dogs are often mistreated. I'll never forget the time I saw a blind person being guided on a sweltering summer day across a crosswalk by a dog limping to be walking on the asphalt. After seeing that, I did some research and found that many guide dogs suffer similarly. Blind people can absolutely manage without dogs.Medical testing on animals, as I said, brings no conclusive results. There are other ways. It is not necessary to torture a human or a non-human for these purposes.And, no, my mindset clearly only pertains to those who have the resources to lead the sort of lifestyle I choose to lead. Hopefully, in the future, this will be everybody. But obviously not now. (Powdered milk, by the way, is not vegan.)The purpose of veganism is not to harm anybody. Not the blind, not the cancer patients, not the farmers, not the animals. It is to help as many people as possible.And, yes, I agree that it's just a different opinion/mindset, and neither of us will convince the other, although I hope something I've said makes sense. Good debating with you!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Destructive is an opinion. Every issue should be debated separately if you're going to use that argument.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

It's just examples. I mean, I tried to pick clear-cut issues. Maybe if I stuck in: "If you can murder young children with an ice pick, do it," it'd be more obvious. But you're right, those could be opinion-based and are vague. My apologies.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

In other words, "it's natural."Weak.If you have the necessary anatomy to rape and you can rape, then rape! I'm not going to give up something that I was made to do. :)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

No, we all have the necessary anatomy to have sex and procreate. Rape is a spin-off of sex and is an invention of man.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Actually, rape occurs among animals as well.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality#Coercive_sex But that's not the point. The point is that just because we have evolved the capability to do something doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

The point is that just because we have evolved the capability to do something doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.LOLDo you realize you've just shot yourself on the foot with that one?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

How so?....................................................
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Sentience is not defined as having a central nervous system. The vast majority of what we label as "animals" do not even have that. The only animals that come close are the most developed mammals and some fish. Even then, there are not many mammals that we consume that could be considered to have any advanced thoughts. Our major animal food sources: pig, chicken, cow, fish are not known to have any conception of who they are, what they are, or anything resembling the sentience that we have. They may be more intelligent than plants or insects, but sentience as it is generally understood is limited to humans strictly. The best you could do is include some species of monkey or ape....which we don't generally eat.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

In reality sentience is not black and white. There is a gradient going from completely non-sentient to completely sentient. You have rocks on one end, and humans on the other. The farther along this spectrum an organism is, the more wrong it is to kill it.As for how sentient the animals we eat are, well, that question is far from settled. I will say my judgment based on watching pigs, cows, etc, is that they are sufficiently sophisticated to make their slaughter wrong. You can watch them interact with one another. You can watch them exhibit fear. I think anyone who approaches this question from an unbiased perspective can't help but make the same call.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

It's hard to have a gradient when there are only two distinct options: eat or do not eat. If we determine an animal to be "half-sentient" we cannot "half-eat" it and expect it to live. I doubt you advocate having a policy of eating an entire insect, a half of a frog, or a leg of a goat (and no more). At any rate, you're going to have to back up your point of view by telling me which animals are okay to eat and which are not. Unless you have other criteria that makes all animals off limits, whether they have central nervous systems or not. Secondly, sentience is not simple intelligence and simple emotions. It's abit more than that. Most animals have rudimentary intelligence, they can solve simple tasks and engage in simple behaviors, even without brains. Also, humans have the tendency to lay emotions on animals that do not necessarily have them. Many studies have shown that we project our personalities onto other animals, especially our pets. That said, some simple emotions may still be found in some animals. But, again, emotions do not make a sentient being.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

You are of course right that we can't "half-eat" something. It's the same problem we face with abortion. We are forced to draw a line somewhere and say, "After it reaches this level of cognitive sophistication, killing this creature is unacceptable." I think capacity for pain is a reasonable place to draw that line. Cows and chickens are clearly well beyond that point.As for the precise meaning of the word "sentient", I'm not interested in semantic quibbling. If you have a better term for "more cognitive capabilities than a rock" we can use that instead.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Sentience is the conscious perception of one's own being and of the world around. It is the ability to conceptualize the world, to come up with abstract and subjective thoughts. That's been the traditional meaning, which you obviously were not aware of. No animal known has the ability to conceptualize abstractions or understand itself, most animals cannot even recognize a mirrored reflection of themselves. Certain Monkeys and Apes come somewhat close, but, again, we don't generally eat them. There is no semantic quibbling here, you simply are misusing a term. You are equating emotions, impulses, and feelings with the ability to engage in intellectual capacities of conception and understanding. I have been trying to get you to define sentience, hoping you'd notice that you don't actually have a definition whatsoever. You just heard the word and decided to apply it emotionally, not logically. Anyways, capacity for pain is not sentience. There are alot of animals you probably wouldn't eat that don't feel pain at all. There are generally no invertebrates that feel pain: lobsters, shrimp, mussels, crabs,..etc. It just so happens that the vast majority (over 90%) of all animals on earth are invertebrates. Even many types of vertebrates, such as fish, do not feel pain. So, the best you've got there is a ban on cows and most other mammals. Otherwise, you are allowing people to eat the vast majority of animals on Earth. That, of course, is if I even accepted the "pain threshold", so to speak. Which I do not. I see no reason why the experience of pain protects an animal from being eaten. You can try out some moral mumbo-jumbo, but those are random value judgments which aren't based on anything objective. If I don't value what you value, any moral argument is going to be useless.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Let's break out the dictionary.Main Entry: sen·tientEtymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : aware3 : finely sensitive in perception or feelingI see see nothing in there about "abstract thoughts". I'd say capacity for pain fits definition 1 and possibly 2 and 3. Let the quibbling commence.As for just what sorts of animals can feel pain, I don't think that is a settled question.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_crustaceans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish I will grant that eating clams and shrimp is probably roughly akin to eating plants from a moral perspective, and is therefore probably ok."So, the best you've got there is a ban on cows and most other mammals."And possibly chickens and other birds."You can try out some moral mumbo-jumbo, but those are random value judgments which aren't based on anything objective."Mumbo-jumbo? Pain is bad. It's that simple. Subjective sensations of good and bad are the foundation of any system of ethics.