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

Animals fight back. Slaughterhouse workers have described the screams of animals, their thrashing, et cetera. If you shackle a human, it's pretty easy to drive a bolt through their brain, if not easier than it is for a cow, as humans are lighter.I suppose you could just pick up roadkill and eat it. Then you "wouldn't need to kill someone to get your hand on a bit of meat."
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

I suppose you could just pick up roadkill and eat it.Well that's just unsanitary.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Possibly less unsanitary than meat that comes out of a slaughterhouse. Workers have testified to dropping meat on the ground, spitting on it, and often mixing meats to get the right portion sizes; e.g., mixing horse leftovers generally used for dog food into ground beef.Yummy. :P
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I already agreed with you on the factory farming issues and how animals are treated.Do you drink milk? Or eat eggs?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

No, I don't. Nor do I wear wool, leather, silk, or other animal-produced products. I don't eat honey, gelatin, or milk by-products such as casein.I am vegan.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Well la de freakin' da.Why not eat unfertilized eggs? Why not eat local honey that is grown by respectful and careful beekeepers who take care of their hives?PS. Cows don't mind being milked.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Because I don't believe in using animals.Hens do not lay eggs for human consumption. They lay them to create offspring.Bees do not produce honey for human consumption. They produce it for food. And they sometimes die (via stinging) to protect it.Cows do not produce milk for human consumption. They produce it to feed their young.And while cows don't mind being milked, they might mind being mechanically raped to become impregnated so they'll begin to produce milk, then having their babies taken from them to go their separate ways (if they're female, they'll have the same fate as their mother; if they're male, they're turned into veal), then being hooked up to machines that cut their udders and fill the milk with blood and pus. And, actually, the US allows more pus in milk than any other nation, I believe.And the free-range bullshit... no way. That's still using an animal.Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

But those eggs that are unfertilized then go to waste.Bees produce honey to feed off of during the winter. But they make much much more than they will ever need. They are also having a rough time right now, with everything that contributes to CCD. Because of hobbyist beekeepers honey bee populations are stabilizing on the west coast. And they are also placed in places that pollinate their environment so that plants can thrive too.And while cows don't mind being milked, they might mind being mechanically raped to become impregnated so they'll begin to produce milk, then having their babies taken from them to go their separate ways (if they're female, they'll have the same fate as their mother; if they're male, they're turned into veal), then being hooked up to machines that cut their udders and fill the milk with blood and pus. And, actually, the US allows more pus in milk than any other nation, I believe.That's factory farming, again. And organic, free range farming isn't bullshit. Cows don't have to be raped to get pregnant. They can also be milked by hand, and that's the kind of milking I was talking about. And even in organic farms, yeah, we eat the males. It's for the good of the heard.Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others.That sounds pretty selfish. We serve the animals. We care for calves abandoned by their mothers. We treat their wounds and illnesses. We find food for them in drought or flood. It sounds like you underestimate the value of teamwork.Think of it as mutual earthling support.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

One of the primary suggested causes of CCD: malnutrition. Another huge cause: commercial beekeeping. Commercial beekeepers rent their hives to farmers to pollinate their plants, causing unrest to the hives. Also, commercial hives are constantly shifted arrive, causing stress.It is absolutely impossible to feed the world on a truly free-range diet. I've already mentioned this.What I meant is that we don't exist solely for the benefit of others.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Duuuuhhhhhuuuhhhh!That's why I specified local beekeepers, known as hobbyists. Commercial beekeeping is essentially factory farming. I have done nothing but denounce factory farming. Who do you think the biggest opponents of commercial beekeping are? It's the hobbyists.Also, I didn't say we should eat meat all the time and as much as we do. I've already stated it should be a side dish. If we reduced the intake of meat, we could support the entire world on a omnivore diet.I don't advocate 5lb stakes with a side of stake. Just like a salad with two tablespoons of tuna made with hummus. Or a stir friend veggie plate and a half a breast of chicken. We eat too much meat for our own good right now, yes. But that doesn't mean we have to.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

We're really just running circles. I clearly don't think meat should be a main dish, a side dish, an ingredient, a... drink? (Ew.) Or any animal by-products. I've thoroughly stated my opinions on animal ab/use, as have you. Neither of us seem to be swaying, and it seems that both of us want the last word.So... good debating with you? Or shall we continue?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

What I stated to begin with was an opinion. I've made my life decisions based on a lot of experience and with a deep respect for and love of animals. I hope you can understand that I live in reality and you live in your own.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I find it very self-righteous of you to believe that you are absolutely right here, with no room for other opinions or other thought processes. I'm quite done with this.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Right back at you.I have my opinions, which you refused to accept or even entertain. You just have this ideal that life should be painless for all animals. That's not life.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Again, I simply choose to not cause suffering and death in my life. Of course life is painful; to make it more so for yourself or others is sadomasochistic and cruel, in my opinion. This opinion does not make me delusional or living in my own reality. I don't believe I ever said anything about your opinions making you delusional. I try not to use personal attacks/judgments in what should be an impersonal argument.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Well the point is that difference in opinion is what this debate is about.So really we could both just take our own opinions and shoove them. Because yours doesn't matter to me, and mine doesn't matter to you. So I think were done.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Edit: Wrong debate.Nothing to see here people move along now!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Which I've been saying. I'm glad you agree. I've had enough.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

That is certainly not what you've been saying.When I said, "If your opinion differs, that's fine. But I love and respect animals."You said, "That's just a difference of opinions.I am an abolitionist. I am against the use of animals, both human and non-human. I campaign for equal rights and compassion for all sentient creatures. That's how I'm different."Thinking you're all holier than thou. Shove it.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I wasn't implying anything. I certainly wasn't calling you insane/delusional/unrealistic/bullshitting. Or telling you to shove it.Perhaps now I do feel "holier than thou," though, since I've managed to not attack you. I feel pretty damn good about my debate and my conduct. You've just been rude.But, really, this is just enough now. Do both of us need to have the last word?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Obviously.But you've insulted me quite a lot. I've been having to defend my opinion with facts, while you with opinions and I resent your intollerance. You insulted my opinion based on a bullshit websites and no actual knowledge of situations at organic free range farms. When I grew up on one and worked for years to stop factory farming. So bascally all you have is your opinion which you used to label me as a user and as a whole bunch of nasty things.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

It's a fact that all animals suffer. It's a fact that this suffering can be reduced, and it's a fact that I'm doing all I can to reduce it. That's all I know.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

That is all you know. And yet you threw around a whole bunch of accusations at me.I resented that. I'm sorry for calling you names, but I felt attacked by nonsense. It infuriates me to have to waste my time knowing I'm not going to change my mind, and you're not going to change your mind. So why the fuck don't we both shut up?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

"Because I don't believe in using animals."Wow that's a very general dismissal of a practice. Are you sure about that? We wouldn't have come so far as a society if we hadn't used anything and everything at our disposal. If people hadn't used horses and made carriages, we would have never communicated with people that lived far away. If we hadn't used pigeons to deliver mail, you would have to walk for a year to deliver your news to your relatives. If we hadn't used sheep wool to protect ourselves from cold winters, we might not be here today. Your dismissal of those practices is so so ignorant."Hens do not lay eggs for human consumption. They lay them to create offspring.Bees do not produce honey for human consumption. They produce it for food. And they sometimes die (via stinging) to protect it."Why do hens produce so many eggs, if not for the fact that nature has already taken into account that a lot of them will be eaten or not survive. Why do fish produce millions of eggs when they lay them in rivers? Cause they know that 90% of them will not survive the environment, which includes them being eaten by other animals.Oh and, should we stop bears from eating honey? After all, the bees don't produce it for consumption, right? And what makes you think that apples are there for your consumption? As far as we KNOW, the apple is created to protect the seeds inside. You seem to be so touchy about using animals and yet happily oblivious as to how many humans YOU are using RIGHT NOW. Do you know how many people are "used" everyday to make sure you have electricity, to make sure you have a good show on TV, to make sure you have streets to drive on, to make sure YOUR RUBBISH is collected, to make sure your vegan food is within easy reach for you so you can be all smug and profess to be a "better person"? Have you any idea how spoiled you sound when you say things like "Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others." We are all "used" in some way or another. Being a postman and delivering letters might be something that the person aspired to do, but they are still paid and "used" to deliver the service even on the days they don't feel like being a postman. Which is why I think your being so young and having no great experience as a working person has a lot to do with your "opinions". When your turn comes to be "used", then come and talk to me again.Let me remind you that someone else is putting the labor, blood, sweat and tears, in order to produce the products of your vegan diet. YOU are USING those people to produce your food. But you are happily ignoring that, because it's not IN YOUR INTEREST to acknowledge it and PUT AN END TO IT. Right? Instead, you are trying to fulfill your smug desire to be a person of higher morals by concentrating on animal rights. Because, THAT you can live with.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Modern technology has made it unnecessary to use animals. In our past, there weren't other options; now there are. We don't need carrier pigeons; we have telephones. We don't need wool; we have synthetics. In most places. Where there are no options, there are no options. But considering that you are using you a computer and have access to the internet, I'd say you have options.Your argument about how humans are "used" is unsound and, quite frankly, angsty. We are lucky enough to choose our jobs and how we are "used"; I've been working since I was twelve, although I do have rather a lack of experience and I'm always looking for more knowledge, experience, and information. I don't profess to be a better person or to know everything; I accept that I'm ignorant in some areas, as we all.Nature always provides more than it has to; that's how species are a success. But do you think that before commercial fish farming/netting was invented, fish laid less eggs? Before factory farms caged chickens, they laid less eggs?I'm finding your argument rather judgmental and offensive. Maybe you should rethink the personal attacks and concentrate on the debate.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

You started it by saying "i don't believe in using animals". That statement, whether you see it or not, is very broad and it implies that you disagree with the use of animals period. Regardless of whether there are options or not. That statement implies that if you lived back in that time, you would be campaigning for the using of horses for transport, which is silly. That's why I called it an ignorant statement, it was too bold and too broad.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Let me modify my statement then:When other options are available, I don't believe in using animals.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Lions and sharks are incapable of moral reasoning.Moral reasoning is nothing more than a by product of a comfortable society. You take that comfort out and moral reasoning vanishes in thin air.Have you seen the movie "Alive"? Those people possessed as much "moral reasoning" as you and me. But when it comes to your life being at stake you will eat the dead corpse of your own brother to survive. That's how set in stone your moral reasoning is... (I was gonna say something about "shoving it" but I'm more polite than that)Humans can decide to renounce their brutal ancestry.I would be careful before going around telling people to renounce their brutal ancestry altogether. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would keep you alive if you were to find yourself stranded somewhere with nothing by wilderness. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would make you put your fists up and defend yourself against the playground bully. And it's not all physical neither. Your "brutal ancestry" is what makes you apply for a job and not really care for all the other applicants, regardless of how much more than you they need the job. If you think that this "brutal ancestry" is only part of our cave-living past, you are deluded!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Indeed. Outside the sanctuary of society human life is nasty, brutish, and short. Though in some circumstances evil may be justified, those actions are still evil. I suppose you could say we have a moral obligation to build a society which allows us to transcend our primitive state of being.I will ignore your tangent about playgrounds and job applications because it is irrelevant to this debate.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Those actions are only "evil" once they are processed through the human judging brain. Nothing else on this earth is known to make a similar judgment. For animals, death and suffering are as much part of life as anything else. But they never judge it or dwell on it. They kill to eat and that's it. "Evil" as we understand it, is a description that resides only in the virtual world of our brain.As for building a society that allows us to transcend our primitive state of being, that is an illusion. We are part of nature and we will always be bound to the same observed behavioral patterns we see in nature. Whether we do it by putting our fists up or by suing each other in court rooms, we are still doing the same thing. "Brutal ancestry" has simply taken another shape.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

True, only humans are capable of recognizing evil. But that doesn't make it less real.True, our primitive impulses push us to behave in a brutish manner. But we can also choose to overcome our base urges; see Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, etc.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

We can't control every animal out there, that's right. BUT! That's only because they don't have the brain capacity that we do! We can do the right thing and eat alternatives to meat, they don't know the difference, they're raised that way.. And ah, sweety.. Disney is cartoon..
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Humans are actually natural herbivores. We were not made to eat meat. Meat is the main cause of heart diseases and certain cancers. If you saw a bunny or a cow, you wouldn't have the instinct to jump on them and rip them to pieces and eat them. Nope. If you saw a ripe juicy pineapple, you would really want to eat it. If you saw a calm happy piglet, you would have no desire to eat themWere herbivores, sweety. :)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

then have the world overrun with animals? Humans are the biggest consumer of meat in the world. Get rid of that and what do you have? If we got rid of spiders we'd be overrun with insects. The idea is ludicrous and flat out stupid.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Your argument doesn't make sense because the vast majority of the animals we kill are bred in factory farms. Understand? We're not talking nature here. We're creating them, subjecting them to a life of suffering, and then killing them. Can't you see that this is wrong?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Well it's a good thing that animals don't have the mental capacity to understand that then. Cause if you take out the "life of suffering", and instead, you create them, subject them to a happy life, then kill them humanely, then there should be no problem.Your problem is that you are projecting your human cognitive abilities onto an animal that simply doesn't have those abilities. It's like feeling sorry for bears who live in caves.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

They understand pain. Just kick a chicken and watch it freak out if you don't believe me. Yes, killing them humanely would be fine, but we don't kill them humanely. How many times do we have to go over this?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

You still don't understand the difference between campaigning for better conditions for animals, and campaigning to stop people from eating meat altogether.You've made this conclusion in your head that just because some places don't treat animals very well then we should all stop eating meet. Is that cause you think the protest is going to trigger new measures in animal welfare? Or do you have a problem with people eating animals regardless of the animals' living conditions? That's the difference between you and the user "believeyoume". She has a problem with the killing of animals period. For her it doesn't matter how well we treat them, cause she has a fundamental belief that we shouldn't use animals at all, period. You however, seem to be jumping from camp to camp. Every now and again you make a claim as to why we shouldn't kill sentient life for whatever reason. And then you change it by saying "killing them humanely would be fine, but we don't kill them humanely" which is a VERY DIFFERENT approach...So where exactly is it that you stand on this?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I clearly stated my position in the first argument I posted to this debate, which you can currently read there in the top-left. It can be succinctly stated as, "Meat, as we currently obtain it, is morally unacceptable." I have never wavered in this position, and I don't understand why you think I have. I can only guess you're imposing invalid assumptions on my arguments.No, I don't fully agree with believe, but our views have a lot of overlap. You could say we've formed a coalition for the better treatment of animals.I could say the same sort of thing about you. There are many people on your side of the debate saying, "Who gives a shit? It doesn't matter what we do to animals, they're just animals. Nature should go unquestioned. Vegetarians are stupid and unhealthy." If you really want to improve the conditions in which animals are treated, why are you on the side of these people? Or does it frustrate you that I'm lumping you in with the extremists?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Quite the contrary. I have made my position very clear and separated myself from the "don't give a shit" extreme camp. I just wanted to point out that you seem to have lumped YOURSELF in the other side of the extreme represented by believeyoume, when in fact, your view is probably 99% similar to mine.We both agree that meat eating is OK but only as long as the animals live and die in a very humane way. But the debate is asking whether meat eating is generally immoral now that we can live as vegans. That's why I'm saying "No, I disagree".
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: you cant say no to chicken nuggets

That's the way to show those bullies. They think they can boss other people around and bully them to follow their own way, instead of leaving everyone to their own personal choice. Ahahahah what a fool.He's probably just sculking away with his tail between his legs, consoling himself over some chicken nuggets. But I won't blame him for hypocrisy. After all, who can say no to chicken nuggets? No one.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Let's think of another overpopulated species, shall we? How about... humans? Let's breed them, take away their young, mechanically rape the females, cram them together without access to the outdoors or even light, inject them with hormones, deny them everything that is natural, cause them suffering throughout their shortened lives, kill them brutally, eat them because they taste good, and then they won't be overpopulated!I also don't believe in breeding, so, no, all human-sustained species would die out.The spiders and insects example only works because they adhere to a food chain. Humans absolutely do not, since we have the ability to eat anything, anytime.Your argument is ludicrous.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

You don't think we are part of the food chain?May I remind you that in the last few weeks, Australia has been preparing the ground to allow crocodile hunting again because the crocodiles, having no predators to fear, have grown in high numbers and have become a danger to all other animals and humans alike.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

That sounds a lot like another species... what is it called... oh, right, humans!Have no predators to fear? Check.Grown high in numbers? Check.A danger to all other animals and humans alike? Check.So, here's an easy way to curb the numbers... let's hunt them!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Have no predators to fear? Check.Who said we don't have predators? We have predators. A human's predator is another human. They may not haunt you for food but loads of them will be more than happy to kill you for many other reasons. In the wild you can also be eaten by all sorts of other predators.You see, when you look at it from the other side, our animal predators have no problem at all eating us...Your response to this so far has been "yes but animals don't understand that it is wrong". 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.