azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

hey i really appreciate your comment . Its cool of you to say that.I myself am not a supporter of the wars or conflicts that have been happening .I did not know enough about the conflicts i was in at the time to have a opinion i was 18 and had a different state of mind . it did give me perspective though and i can appreciated that . thank you again.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

You are very welcome. :)
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

That is not horrible it is crude and revolting. That is also prejudice. Everyone is evil and does bad things and maybe the Taliban made a mistake. ( A big one that really hurt some people) but if you got peed on when you were dead because you did something wrong you wouldn't have a reason to object but you would have all the reason to say why they should. Remember every story as two (or more) sides to it.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

I see three dead humans in a hand dug excavation, laying alongside a wheelbarrow. They had on white and blue clothing, which means they were not likely hiding, but obviously the crime of having a wheelbarrow makes them terrorists farmers. Killing them was enough, no real need to piss on their faces and giggle as well. Typical of the crimes of war...nothing new, other than they don't usually film it. There was never a good war or a bad peace, but we have not learned that yet.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Can anyone support their actions with a logical argument?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

The American ideals are that they are arrogantly better than the rest of the world without ever having set foot INTO the rest of the world and the idea that the Americans would desecrate the bodies of even their enemies is disgusting this idea is mortifying they are people like you and i and if some asshole Taliban came and pissed all over your dead body on the middle of the battlefield your ghost would probably be pissed and haunt that guy...
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Funny, because almost every American does not view themselves better than everyone else. Sure you will get the occasional crazy one, but the vast majority? Stop generalizing.For the record, I am strongly against urinating on Taliban members. Regardless of the atrocities that said Taliban members may or may not have committed.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Disgusting, and it is exactly the kind of bad rep we in the military and even just Americans in general really need...I swear it is always the Marines...
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

My thoughts exactly.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

It's horrible it was filmed...but I'm glad they did it and they were able to relieve some stress!! I support those guys 100%...but...oops...shit happens. Oh well. These soldiers may have just mowed down 100 people, but now you're upset because they went to the bathroom...lol..humans. This might be a good thing though...maybe we'll realize we don't need to police the rest of the world and stuff like this is going to continually happen..hence...saving American Soldiers' lives when we stop sending underpaid soldiers overseas.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Even though the Taliban are sick idiots (most of them), you should never disgrace a human being like that.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Stupid

The Taliban banks on the United States moral superiority when they fight us a few individuals pissing is not going to change the fact that we are in fact morally superior. Because contrary to what many might believe morals are generally not relative.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Horrible AND stupid. It does not matter who the person was, the body (not necessarily the soul) is a pure thing and it is extremely inhumane to perform this act.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Jesus would not do that. He is the example that we should follow, Christian or not.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Absolutely disgraceful. It puts them even lower than the guys they're persecuting.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

it's horrible.i mean the marins that did it should be in jail because that's Discrimination.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

MOFOING!!!!! THE AMERICANS R no better than the taliban if u ask me
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

u have right i mean al-qaida did the 9/11 attack for a reason.and the reason it's that USA invaded their country, killing innocent people, kidnapped their children and imprisoned them for oil. and since that Iraq did not resist al-qaeda did
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Of course i don't agree with 9/11, and respect the phrase "never dance on another mans grave" but one persons views can differ enormously compared to someone else's. American troops should not urinate on the Taliban! However ridiculous that sounds. Of course, they do it to the Americans, they say "lets nuke the place!" the Americans do it to them "lol." It's disgusting, no wonder they're loosing the war ( i made a debate about Afghanistan, go see.) As i am speaking, RT reporters are talking about the twin tower attacks. The Americans have done far more wrong in other countries. But they're still going on about it.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Interestingly enough, no-one asked you. Please stop generalizing. Say "THOSE AMERICANS R no better than the Taliban". In this case you would be referring to the people who committed the act, not everybody and their grandmother.And on an ending note: Thanks for putting me on the level of suicide bombers who are out killing innocents.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I wouldn't call it "murder", but I do believe that anything which causes undesired pain to a sentient being is wrong. Killing an animal painlessly would be morally acceptable. But we don't kill them painlessly. In fact, due to the atrocious conditions maintained in the factory farming industry, the entire lives of millions of sentient beings are filled with suffering.And everybody who says "oh, but it's natural" just has their head up their ass. Natural does not mean morally acceptable. Rape is natural -- doesn't make it ok. Why don't people get that?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

I wouldn't call it "murder", but I do believe that anything which causes undesired pain to a sentient being is wrong.Meh, we're higher order animals. It's what we do. All predators do it: cause undesired pain to their prey, which are usually other sentient beings.Killing an animal painlessly would be morally acceptableWhy is it morally acceptable to kill at all?In fact, due to the atrocious conditions maintained in the factory farming industry, the entire lives of millions of sentient beings are filled with suffering.So?Why don't people get that?Is a cheetah immoral for choking their prey to death or sometimes eating them alive? Do you yell at the discovery channel animals for doing what they do?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

In other words, "it's natural." Lame.It's wrong to kill humans, even painlessly, because if we don't condemn murder then we will not be able to function as a society.This same logic does not apply to animals, because we will still be able to function as a society even if we do massacre animals.However there is a second aspect of morality at work here: Pain is bad and it should therefore be minimized.Predators are not behaving immorally because they lack the intellectual capacity for morals.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

In other words, "it's natural."Well, that's not the point at all. The peripheral point is that higher order animals will cause undesired pain in sentient beings simply by living. The more substantive point is that you don't believe that anything that causes undesired pain to sentient beings is wrong. What you're really arguing isn't about pain in and of itself, it's about painful killing. And humans painfully killing, at that. Because clearly, I can tag an elephant in a preserve and it would cause undesired pain to a sentient being, and you probably wouldn't argue that I was doing something wrong. So your initial sentiment is what I am contending. It is in fact not the case that you "...believe that anything which causes undesired pain to a sentient being is wrong."You believe in specific conditions and not the very general statement you made at the start.It's wrong to kill humans, even painlessly, because if we don't condemn murder then we will not be able to function as a society.You're going to have to flesh out this argument for me. How does not condemning murder result in a non-functioning society? What do you mean by a functioning society? Is your definition universal?However there is a second aspect of morality at work here: Pain is bad and it should therefore be minimized.Why is pain bad? Is all pain bad? Should all pain be minimized? Does minimizing pain make the act of killing the animal more "good"? And if it does, why does it make it more "good"?Predators are not behaving immorally because they lack the intellectual capacity for morals.Humans are predators, so are many of the other great apes. And like humans, many apes have the intellectual capacity to be moral and this morality has been documented.As far as I'm concerned, so far you're trying to impress upon the debate a bit of special pleading on behalf of humans, when humans are animals, we are predators, like many other apes, have a moral compass and still behave true to our biological roots. What is immoral about treating other animals in the way other animals treat other animals? But to the major question itself. Do we have a moral obligation to not eat meat simply because we can live on other foods?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Tagging an elephant would be slightly wrong. But the badness of the pain would likely be outweighed by the goodness of the resultant scientific progress.If we all believed that murder of humans was ok, we would have people killing each other left and right. The moment any authority figure tries to force someone to do something they don't want to do, there would be blood.Pain is bad because we experience it that way (for the most part). We experience it as a bad thing because evolution has made us that way. Removing the pain takes the badness out of killing an animal because the animal experiences no negative emotions. It wouldn't make the act of killing good, it would make it neutral.When I said predators, I was referring to your example of cheetahs killing their prey. If a cheetah kills a gazelle it is not behaving immorally because a cheetah is incapable of moral reasoning.However if an animal with sufficient intelligence, such as a human, kills another animal knowing that it's wrong, then yes they are committing evil. If we can't kill animals painlessly, and can easily make do without killing them, then yes we have a moral obligation not to kill animals.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

flesh out this argument, LOL. Pro.You showed him, hahaha. I don't know if he understood it though. You have to show those bullies they can't push other people around and tell them what to do, and what to eat or not to eat, and to mind their own business. And they think what they say matters at all, hahahaha.He's probably skulking away right now with his tail tucked, consoling himself over some chicken nuggets. But I won't call him on his hypocrisy. After all, who can say no to chicken nuggets? No one.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Predators are not behaving immorally because they lack the intellectual capacity for morals.With that argument, is it that immoral to kill a creature that doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand anything other than Mate Feed Kill Repeat?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

It's not that bad, but it's still bad. Because they feel pain.I suppose you could argue that wiping all predators off the face of the earth might follow from my logic, because it could prevent a greater amount of pain in their prey.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Meh, we're higher order animals. It's what we do. All predators do it: cause undesired pain to their prey, which are usually other sentient beings. What exactly is a "higher order"? If you're saying as predators, let's see how well you fare in a pin with a leopard (or even in the wild, with a leopard). If you're talking about intelligence, why if we are so "high" in the order, are we still eating meat? There are plenty of healthy alternatives that cost much less in the way of work required, resources needed, associated pain, environmental impact, etc. Is a cheetah immoral for choking their prey to death or sometimes eating them alive? Do you yell at the discovery channel animals for doing what they do?Animals, like cheetahs, don't have a sense of morals... Humans do, and yet it seems to make little difference. Also, there isn't a cheetah grocery store to go to, and they are strictly carnivores, we are not. We have moral choice, many morally acceptable options that are just as good if not batter tasting, and we have the ability, physically, to choose... and you say that meat is perfectly acceptable?  How do you feel about cannibalism?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

What exactly is a "higher order"?I mean organisms that qualify as complex and not simple life: bacteria or archaea, and exist in higher taxanmic classifications like Aves and Mammalia.If you're saying as predators, let's see how well you fare in a pin with a leopard (or even in the wild, with a leopard).How humans (apparently how I) compete directly against particular predators has no bearing on whether or not humans are also predators. I could put a cheetah in a cage with a male silverback gorilla and the cheetah would lose, too. So what? Does the cheetah suddenly stop being a predator?If you're talking about intelligence, why if we are so "high" in the order, are we still eating meat? The question is moot: our intelligence has nothing to do with why we still eat meat. There are plenty of healthy alternatives that cost much less in the way of work required, resources needed, associated pain, environmental impact, etc.Only because they're not "mainstream". If everyone or even most people, for example, lived on a vegetable dominant diet and not a meat dominant diet, there would still be a need to have an industry that can produce the necessary quantities for people to survive on that diet. That means: farms, trucks, fuel, processing factories, machinery, increasingly more land for produce and a much larger labor force. You'd just be switching one for the other; it doesn't come "carbon-imprint" free. And to be honest with you, we are killing life either way. I don't buy into this whole humane bullshit. The whole pain angle is like saying it's better to shoot someone in the head than stab them in the throat - the latter unethical and the former morally acceptable because it's less painful. Humans kill life to survive. I don't give a flying fuck how much or little pain the life I kill and eat encounters; at the end of the day I'm still killing. Or someone is killing on my behalf. I don't put a hierarchy on killing or compartmentalize my ethical judgment. Killing is unethical. But I'm going to eat meat and vegetables.Animals, like cheetahs, don't have a sense of morals... Humans do, and yet it seems to make little difference.Which is not the point. The point is what moral judgment humans ascribe to other animal behavior, we recognize that cheetahs are doing what cheetahs do. Whether or not they have morals is immaterial. Humans are doing what humans do. We have bodies that have evolved to ingest and digest meats, vegetables and grains. So we eat these things. To say "killing painfully is unethical" is as meaningful a judgment as saying "cheetahs choking their prey to death is unethical". It's just what we do.We have moral choice, many morally acceptable options that are just as good if not batter tasting, and we have the ability, physically, to choose... and you say that meat is perfectly acceptable?Yes, I do say killing and eating organisms that have meat is perfectly fine.How do you feel about cannibalism?How I feel about cannibalism is irrelevant.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?And did you say healthy, cost effective alternatives with less work required and less environmental impact? Is that REALLY true? How many people have the health, the money and the time and work required to grow their own fruit and veg? Their own "variety" of veg to make up for the protein. I mean c'mon! Let's cut the crap here. If everybody had to grow or kill their own food how many people would be vegans exclusively? If you had to choose between digging the land, planting the seeds, watering it for months, using chemicals to make sure it's a successful batch, then harvesting it months later for you to have a plate of beans for dinner... How many would give up and just kill a chicken instead?The vegans are as hypocritical about food as meat eaters, cause at the end of the day, its always somebody else that has to do the work and provide you with your "morally acceptable" alternatives. You have a problem with the "usage" of animals, but you don't have a problem with the "usage" of other humans to prepare your food. Talk about acceptable morals!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

You'd have to grow fruits and vegetables one way or another, because man cannot live on meat alone.Are you seriously comparing buying from a farmer to exploiting animals in factory farms? We humans have this concept known as an "economy", in which "money" is exchanged for "goods and services". Frankly, I'm surprised you've never heard of it.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

I really don't understand why you are on this side of the debate.The debate is asking "is it our moral obligation to stop eating meat now that we can have vegan alternatives". It's not asking "do you agree with factory farm living conditions". By your admission, if the meat comes from your local farmer where the animals are treated well and killed humanely then that is acceptable. So your answer to the question of the debate should be NO.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Well, the bastard inside me wants to argue that factory farming is inextricably bound to the modern concept of meat, so it is impossible to discuss one without the other.But instead, I'll take a more conciliatory approach and acknowledge that yes, I have nudged this debate along a slightly different trajectory than the one you originally intended. But the issue of factory farming is very closely related, and at the same time much more important. I'm taking a pragmatic approach to improving the lives of animals. "Are hardcore vegans right" wouldn't have made for a very interesting debate anyway, as you can tell by the fact that this debate had fallen off the charts before I kicked the hornet's nest with my initial argument.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?Well, intelligent beings, I think, would be concerned about the future. We cannot have meat as we do today, forever, and it is much more efficient to grow plants than to grow plants to feed cattle. If you'd think about it a little harder there would be no need to "cut the shit". A huge quantity of grain produced in the world is dedicated to cattle. In fact, if you count calories from grain that it takes to feed cattle, and then count the end result of feeding the cattle and butchering it, etc, you'd find that meat is far far more expensive to produce and store than meat. Efficiency will be important sometime in the future, when the world is overcrowded with people and labor is handed over to machines. It sounds like science fiction, and it is for now, but that's the most logical solution to many problems. People won't have jobs as they do now, so maintaining a personal garden won't be difficult, but I see community farming becoming popular before personal farming. Even if you ignore the entire side of the debate that deals with the treatment of animals, or the suffering of animals, there are still very important questions about human nature and morals that need to be worked through... Where do we want to be in 50 years? Still slaughtering animals (more than we do now), in an even more careless fashion for so many more people who just want something to snack on for a minute... or do we want a self sustaining civilization that doesn't feel like it requires meat, that has an overabundance of food that is actually healthy? It's not a personal problem so much as it is a societal one... but that doesn't mean it's not a moral issue.The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no? Not all people use their intelligence to do anything truly good... they, like animals, only seek to keep themselves happy... which is why this topic is an issue at all.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I agree. And ya know what I say to people and get some nasty looks? "Why don't you go ahead and commit some cannibalism now?" I mean, seriously, so we're the highest order of species, why waste already dead human bodies, too, and eat them instead of letting them rot into Earth while there's still millions of people starving? So, it's "immoral" to eat an already dead human for meat, but it's "natural and OK" to brutally kill animals for meat? Whatever. I don't think it has anything to do with morals to not eat a human, but rather because we're mentally trained to think it's disgusting and crass to eat another human, and it's OK to kill and eat animals, PERIOD. Most people are also mentally trained to believe in God and Jesus and church and worship (and on and on and on), but does that mean it's the "Right" thing? Not really.:-)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

I have read all your arguments with a lot of attention cause for a long time I have wanted to understand the mentality behind this slogan.I would like to point out that first you stated that Killing an animal painlessly would be morally acceptable, but you then took that back and said that killing is wrong regardless. I would also like to point out that modern day slaughter houses have made the process extremely quick and as painless as it can get (after all we are killing them), in any case it's a lot more humane and a lot less torturous than it would have been in the wild. My last point is this: Morality is a very fickle thing, it changes all the time. Your opinion and arguments about this is only valid for as long as you live near a super market where you can buy your variety of vegan alternatives. If you were to go visit an African village where you either eat the killed pray or you starve to death, you would be singing a different tune. Am I wrong? Or if you were to go live with the Eskimos, and fish is your primary food source. Somehow, killing that fish doesn't sound so wrong, does it?So the killing of animals for food is not a fundamentally wrong thing to do, after all. This "moral obligation" attitude only comes to play once we advance to a level where you can choose to not eat meat without any consequences. But just because you can choose, doesn't mean that you have the moral obligation to make the choice. And to take the moral high ground and preach onto others is extremely self righteous and arrogant, especially as you would be very willing to eat meat if you had to eat it in order to live. Just be thankful that you have the choice.