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

The vast majority of your most recent response is begging the question. You are attempting to repudiate my rebuttals by reiterating the very claims my rebuttals discredit. I am disinclined to continue repeating those rebuttals when you have both evidenced and confessed your lack of application. You openly admitted that you skim rather than read references presented to you, and the regularity with which your own references fail to support your conclusions suggests you are just as superficial in reviewing your own materials. The regularity with which your skimming reinforces rather than challenges your pre-existing beliefs suggests a strong confirmation bias at work.The only thing that makes it "difficult" to follow every argument being made is, again, your own lack of application. Everything is written down and easily available for repeated reference and review. Perhaps it would be permissible to omit a few of the smaller points, but you are consistently dropping major arguments. For instance, you addressed none of the environmentalism points in your last response even though that was one of your three major original points. Notably, you have also never warranted your assertion that equal sentience mandates human egalitarianism towards other animals despite that being the central premise of your first major original point. I doubt it is a coincidence that the major points you most regularly drop are the most heavily repudiated and/or most indefensible points.You have also consistently misrepresented my statements, at best out of ignorance and at worst with deliberate intent. For instance, you claim that I argue that animals are not sentient and also that animals and plants are both sentient; in truth, I have argued neither. My sole argument has been that your argument is unfounded. Notably, I also never suggested that sentience should have any relevance in how we treat other beings so your implication that I must advocate for ableist eugenics if I advocate for omnivorism is patently unfounded. More importantly, your assertion that I must adopt and defend some stance does not follow. You are on the defensive because you advanced a claim which you are now attempting to defend. I advanced no claim, and am not obliged to do so simply because you did.Finally, my criticisms of your intellectual application and abilities do not constitute ad hominem attacks because I never used them to suggest that your arguments themselves were wrong. My original observations in this regard were efforts to prompt you to apply yourself more critically and logically to our exchange. My more recent statements made in this response are by way of explaining why I have no intention of engaging further with you on this subject; I am not remotely interested in spending more time attempting to seriously debate with someone who is too attached to their beliefs to think critically about them.P.S. Not that you are likely to actually read them, but here are the links to 6 and 7 that were broken in my last reply.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

I propose that we take each point at a time, for both ease of view and simplicity. That we should debate sentience until we are finished and then move onto the next point. Both our time and energy are valuable, and I believe this will save on both."I have argued neither. My sole argument has been that your argument is unfounded." Jace I contend that a flawed argument is better than no argument. Thus, by only making an argument against mine while not presenting any yourself, you are effectively conceding. Btw, those two links, 6 and 7, aren't working for me, maybe you have access to them and I don't?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

I have no interest in continuing this exchange with you, for reasons already clearly stated. Repeating the arguments I have already made does not save me time. You do not understand how debate works. When someone advances a claim they have the burden of proof. There is no burden of proof created for the person who attempts to hold them to account for that burden of proof. I have thoroughly contested your claims to that end, so to assert that I have conceded them is disingenuous at best. The links are not access limited, so I have no idea why they are not working except that the coding must be messed up somehow. It hardly matters; 5 was the major reference point anyways and you never bothered to respond to that.I do not intend to respond further.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

This is really quite rudimentary, but there is no shared burden of proof to your claim quite simply because you are the one who made it. The only obligation incurred by challenging your claim is the burden of repudiation, which may be done either through counterclaim or by attacking the underlying logic of your claim as both fulfill that burden. You are not entitled to one method over the other, no matter how unfair or difficult you find actually having to defend your claim to be. As I did challenge the basis of your claims it follows that I very obviously did not concede your claims. Nor does rejecting your resolution mean that I also reject every other possible resolution. Your erroneous notion to the contrary has made you even more narrow-minded than your unchecked confirmation bias alone. Taken together, they have caused you to repeatedly misunderstand and dismiss numerous arguments and their referential support, most of which you never addressed. You feel confident that you have defended your beliefs only because you are so dogmatic about them that you overlook anything that challenges them or forces you to question them. For instance, your repeated aversion to actually answer why equal sentience should create a human moral obligation towards other animals. If you want to know what actual tacit concession looks like, this is a prime example. Your confidence is not only unfounded, but willfully ignorant.I will not bother speaking directly to the issues any longer since I have standing arguments and evidence against literally every matter you raised in your most recent post. Most of your rebuttal is targeted at strawmen anyways. I only replied this time because I am bored and this presented a brief and shallow diversion.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Jace you said last time "I do not intend to respond further." Anyways its obvious now that Jace and I both think we have successful refuted the other person's arguments. Both parties contend that they have the advantage and there is nothing more to be said. I'm ready for people to judge the debate between us. I will not reply further.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

I did not say I would not respond, only that I did not intend to which was true at the time. Then I got bored, which I still am apparently.I never claimed to have succeeded in winning the debate. I observed only that you have repeatedly failed to respond to numerous critical points, and that having a legitimate debate with you is practically impossible since you are too lazy and dogmatic to actually read and respond to the substance of any rebuttal. By the way, no one is going to "judge" this debate in any formal or meaningful way; that is not a feature on this forum. The closest you will get is the up and down vote feature on our individual arguments, and that is practically meaningless.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

"I observed only that you have repeatedly failed to respond to numerous critical points, and that having a legitimate debate with you is practically impossible since you are too lazy and dogmatic to actually read and respond to the substance of any rebuttal. " Jace  First I have responded, and to the best of my knowledge I have refuted your claims successfully. As for calling me lazy, this is an Ad Hominem. Again, I offer to re-dispute your claims one at a time.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

You cannot legitimately claim to have responded to critical arguments when I have repeatedly and explicitly identified arguments to which you have provided no response. Nor can you legitimately claim to have refuted my claims successfully when you have openly admitted to not reading everything presented to you.I have already thoroughly explained why my observations about your lack of application are not ad hominem attacks. As usual, you have failed to respond to that analysis and as before I am disinclined to repeat myself when you can read what has already been written.I also already thoroughly explained why I am not interested in revisiting my counterarguments to your claims point by point. Incidentally, your consistent failure to address such analysis was one of numerous reasons provided; you would know that if you actually bothered to read what I wrote.Not even boredom could compel me to respond further, and so I will not.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Let me explain my dilemma in with responding to your arguments. Half the words are new to me. I have to look them up in the dictionary. Then, I have to figure out which meaning of the word you are using. Next, I have to understand what you response is conveying. Finally, I have to create a response to your arguments.  I am capable of doing all this. Yet, it will require considerable amount of time and effort. So, you have two choices. A. Restate your arguments in layman terms.orB. Wait at least two weeks for me to fully respond. Scolding me for not being able to keep with your arguments is a proof by verbosity fallacy. I had somebody post this youtube and then yell at me for not understanding the content. I wonder how quickly you will understand the below youtube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNDY3yk6heE
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

This response is made in my defense and meant for anyone other than vegan. Everything said against their abilities is based on things they admitted, and was never used as counterargument. They have had one excuse after another for not responding to my points; this is just the latest. If they honestly struggled to understand me, then they should have said so from the start. Had they done so I would have reworded my points, as I have for others. Waiting until the thread becomes this long and then expecting me to reword every comment is unreasonable. I also have no intention of waiting for them to finally respond, since I have other reasons beyond their vocabulary to suspect any further comments from them to be just as non-responsive.P.S. Vegan. I understood the link easily. Had I not, I would have admitted it upfront and then applied myself to understanding it, rather than pretending I got it until I got called out and then calling someone fallacious just for knowing more than I do.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

I finally read the entire debate back and forth between Jace and I. Its evident that Jace is intelligent, but lacks knowledge and experience on the subject.My first reaction was correct. Jace has provided no real counter-argument. This is easy to miss at first because of all the advanced words that are used. In fact, Jace only links to one article about nutrition and vegans. The other two links were broken. After pouring over the material its evident that not all vegan diets are created equal. Suffice to say, a healthy vegan diet can be achieved. There is plenty of evidence of this all over the internet. Both scienfic and anecdotal.  As for eating just a little bit of meat. This doesn't make sense due to temptation and humans. That's why supplements are better. Think of somebody trying to resist a pie. The person decides to take one slice and ends up eating the whole pie.  For more information on a vegan diet watch these films.FoKHealing
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

If you only just now bothered to actually read the debate, then by your own admission you had no idea what you were even responding to in your earlier posts which necessarily makes them non-responsive.I have already explained why your verbosity argument is not valid, as well as outright suspect. I will not repeat myself; your evasive character speaks for itself.My working link on vegan nutrition was more than adequate on its own to discredit your claims. Given that you never responded to that or any other research and that you had already openly admitted to not actually reading references provided to you, there was no reason for me to waste time fixing the broken links just for you to ignore them. As has already been explained.I presented numerous links about the nutritional and socio-political viability of an insect based diet to which you never responded. Your ignorance of entomophagy was clear from the start, and your resistance to learning about it speaks to your dogmatic brand of veganism.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

You still didn't address my question about if you agreed with hunting or not? Which is it?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

While off topic, I will declare that I disagree with humans hunting animals for sport.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Are you purposely avoiding the question. On the right side you said you disagree with the killing of animals, so then you must be opposed to killing deer for any reason. If so, then the consequences to the environment are huge, as the article I linked pointed out. Then can I deduce that you are in favor of letting millions of deer starve to death AND wreck havoc on the forests and farmers crops? That is incredibly cruel to allow millions of deer that horrendous ending.However, you just stated that you are opposed to humans hunting for sport. It seems to me you are leaving yourself a way out in case you can't figure out a way to save the deer without killing them. Meaning, if necessary, you would approve of killing deer for humane reasons, but you didn't state that, now did you?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Foratag you seem to bent on taking this debate off topic and confusing the issue. Deer have to die eventually, as do all living creatures. I see it as completely different to have wolves hunt and kill deer in a natural way. As opposed to humans hunting for sport like pigeon shoots. To clarify, I am against animal abuse and cruelty. Yet, there are extraordinary circumstances where it would be tolerable for a human to kill an animal. For example, a person trapped on a desert island with only animals for food. Self-defense would be another example.  I'm alright with wild animals killing other wild animals in their natural habitat.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

okay, it is clear that you do not want to kill animals, fine. You talk about destruction of habitat in the original post. What do you propose we do when an invasive species threatens to disrupt and wipe out an entire ecosystem? We can't kill that invader, according to you, so do we allow nature to take its course and what happens happens. In some circumstances relocating that species is impossible, it is either kill it or allow it to multiply. That sounds like Darwin's survival of the fittest approach. If so, then why do you want to save starving people around the world? Are humans more important to you than animals, and if so, then why not allow at least some consumption of meat when it is appropriate. But you are totally opposed to any meat consumption, so my belief is that you regard animals and humans as equals. Most rational people will disagree with that.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

If the invasive species is a plant, trimming back the plant works great. Many vines are beautiful but invasive. If properly contained their beauty can be appreciated without the threat to the environment. All invasive species are caused by humans that I know of. One example a human decides to bring a plant from his or her home town. Not only does the plant come, but a few animals are hiding within the soil. Since humans were the ones who introduced the invasive species, its up to humans to find an innovative way to minimize the harm. In Australia rabbits were rampant and introducing new natural predators worked wonders. Its nearly impossible to get through life without killing an animal. Instead, the principle of least harm is the most reasonable solution.  Some people seem to think in black and white. That vegans kill no animals or factory farming is morally sound. Vegans killing no animals is a falsehood. Animals are killed during harvesting. Yet, this is no excuse for factory farming. We have to play the hand life gives us.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

You can live without it. It is healthier and not linked to any form of cruelty. Compassion, unlimited.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

I would consider it cruelty to my taste buds.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Ban dairy and meat?Why?Just because you're a vegan and want everybody to know it? You think it is hip and cool? LOL. So much so you even use it for your UserName on CB.News Flash: we don't give a rat's ass.I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me. I am a life-long athlete and in excellent condition. A Proud Carnivore. (Not so proud I would use it as a UserName, though. LOL)Well, really an omnivore since I eat veggies too. This is called a ell-balance diet, BTW. Something Veg-heads don't get.Most vegans don't get enough protein. I have gone on vegetarian stints during my life, like for maybe a month at a time, a couple times a year. I've Done this for several years.So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely. Oh, my cardio abilities and endurance might have gone up a couple ticks but I noticed by pure weight-room strength always waned.Why?As an Evolutionary Biologist I can telly you that us homo sapiens evolved eating meats, fruits and veggies. Our optimal diets include meat. Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.Pure herbivores don't have these.NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation.So bottom line is...being a Veg Head is a personal choice. If it works for you fine. You're already on thin ice if you advocate it for others, but to propose non-vegan food should be banned is absurd. Ridiculous. Groundless.It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology.Like I said....we evolved to be carnivorous..........http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html And...like I said, why we NEED to keep eating good lean meat.......http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html And like I said...you guys are pretty much a joke to us......http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/funny-vegan-jokes.jpg
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Just because you're a vegan and want everybody to know it? You think it is hip and cool?Perhaps you forgot about the disproportionate amount of 'gym-rats' who boast their physical accomplishments and plaster pictures of themselves on any social medium with an 'insert photo' option.I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me.How you managed to reconcile these two mutually exclusive statements is anyone's guess. Anyway, your knowledge on 'superbly physical fit athletes' is highly partial, unfounded, and just plain irrelevant.I am a life-long athlete and in excellent condition. A Proud Carnivore.Well, really an omnivore since I eat veggies too. This is called a ell-balance diet, BTW. Something Veg-heads don't get.So why not delete the latter statement since you manifestly erred in your former one?Most vegans don't get enough protein.Again, unfounded. Vegans who diet improperly do not consume enough protein. Further, is getting all that wonderful protein helping anything? 68.8% of Americans are overweight or obese; 35% are obese; and 74 percent of men are overweight... America ranks #2 in meat consumption, by the way. You should be concerned for your pseudo-carnivorous counterparts as Vegans do not suffer half of the health consequences that non-vegans do.I have gone on vegetarian stints during my life, like for maybe a month at a time, a couple times a year. I've Done this for several years.And you failed miserably (and comically) since you could not maintain 'weight-room strength' due to alleged protein deficiency - and you have the temerity to blame it on the vegan lifestyle, as opposed to laziness, despite the great amount of successful bodybuilding vegans who, apparently, bring out your frailty. So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely.Again you admit to your incompetence; some just don't have the cognitive resources to adjust to a different, more complex lifestyle. As an Evolutionary BiologistHahahaha. That humor is exacerbated by this next erroneous statement:Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.Do you know the animal with largest incisors? A Hippopotamus - classified as herbivore. Few more herbivores incisors: Mountain Gorilla; Saber-Toothed Deer; The Gelada Baboon; Camels; certain pigs (e.g. the Javelina).As a self-proclaimed evolutionary biologist you should know the reason certain herbivores, especially the hippo, evolved to have such sharp incisors despite having no meat on their list of favorite foods.NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation.Must I really provide a potential litany of citations that state the contrary? Was this a serious non-exaggerated statement?It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology.Yet, each of your claims were either unfounded, absurd, fallacious, or expressly erroneous...
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

The fact is, that the vast majority of people in the world are not vegans and therefore, the vast majority of the athletes you meet, along with the vast majority of morbidly obese people (which make up the majority of America by the way) are going to be non-vegans; it doesn't have so much to do with them being omnivorous rather than them working hard in terms of physical training.Despite the obvious anecdotal claims of vegans getting plenty of protein (patrik baboumian, one of the strongest men in the world), there is plenty of scientific evidence claiming how vegans easily achieve a sustainable amount of protein in their diets If you would maybe look at some evidence rather than jumping to conclusions, you would be surprised. https://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php Are you seriously an evolutionary biologist? I find that hard to believe as you're using one of the weakest arguments against veganism, our teeth. Look at gorillas who have much larger and stronger 'incisors' than humans, who are also herbivorous. but I guess to you that just means they are some biological anomaly?http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/gorilla/ I wont bother posting any but there have been plenty of scientific studies showing the correlation between vegan diets and lower rates of cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes that you can easily look up on pubmed or any where else really.