feat: imported arguments to page

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/Abortion.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.Abortion exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentAbortion : Argument
+argumentAbortion =
+    { argumentTitle = "Abortion Rights"
+    , propositionTitle = "One's whims are not a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~2Q~5R),(P),(Q),((R~1F~1~3H)~5M),(F),(~3H),(M~5~3W)%7C=(~3W)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "P"
+          , definiens = "one consents to becoming pregnant"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q"
+          , definiens = "one consensually engages in sexual activity without contraception"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R"
+          , definiens = "one is implicitly committed to at least accepting the average risks for the average pregnancy"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "F"
+          , definiens = "one's pregnancy persists long enough for fetal sentience to develop"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "H"
+          , definiens = "one's risk profile during pregnancy is high"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "M"
+          , definiens = "one is morally bound to carrying the pregnancy to term"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "W"
+          , definiens = "one's whims are a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "If one consents to becoming pregnant or one consensually engages in sexual activity without contraception, then one is implicitly committed to at least accepting the average risks for the average pregnancy."
+                  , notation = "(P∨Q→R)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "One consents to becoming pregnant."
+                  , notation = "(P)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "One consensually engages in sexual activity without contraception."
+                  , notation = "(Q)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If one is implicitly committed to at least accepting the average risks for the average pregnancy and one's pregnancy persists long enough for fetal sentience to develop and one's risk profile during pregnancy is not high, then one is morally bound to carrying the pregnancy to term."
+                  , notation = "(R∧F∧¬H→M)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "One's pregnancy persists long enough for fetal sentience to develop."
+                  , notation = "(F)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "One's risk profile during pregnancy is not high."
+                  , notation = "(¬H)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If one is morally bound to carrying the pregnancy to term, then one's whims are not a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life."
+                  , notation = "(M→¬W)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, one's whims are not a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴¬W)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/AgriculturalPredation.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.AgriculturalPredation exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentAgriculturalPredation : Argument
+argumentAgriculturalPredation =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument for Animal Agirculture Counting as Predation"
+    , propositionTitle = "Animal agriculture counts as predation."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y~6z(Px~4Qxyz~1(Rxyz~2Sxyz)~1Txyz)),(Qahl),(Rahl~2Sahl),(Tahl)%7C=(Pa)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "P(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) counts as predation"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q(x,y,z)"
+          , definiens = "(x) involves a (y) regularly capturing a (z)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R(x,y,z)"
+          , definiens = "(x) involves a (y) regularly killing a (z)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "S(x,y,z)"
+          , definiens = "(x) involves a (y) regularly subduing a (z)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "T(x,y,z)"
+          , definiens = "(x) involves a (y) regularly consuming, to the captor's benefit, a (z)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "a"
+          , definiens = "animal agriculture"
+          }
+          , { definiendum = "h"
+          , definiens = "humans"
+          }
+          , { definiendum = "l"
+          , definiens = "livestock"
+          }
+
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "Something counts as predation if, and only if, something involves an animal regularly capturing, killing or subduing, and consuming, to the captor's benefit, another animal."
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y∀z(Px↔Qxyz∧(Rxyz∨Sxyz)∧Txyz))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Animal agriculture involves humans regularly capturing livestock."
+                  , notation = "(Qahl)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Animal agriculture involves humans regularly killing or subduing livestock."
+                  , notation = "(Rahl∨Sahl)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Animal agriculture involves humans regularly consuming, to the captors' benefit, livestock."
+                  , notation = "(Tahl)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, animal agriculture counts as predation."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Pa)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/AnimalRights.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.AnimalRights exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentAnimalRights : Argument
+argumentAnimalRights =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument for Animal Rights"
+    , propositionTitle = "We should not exploit animals to any greater degree than we would tolerate for humans."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Wx~5Nx)),(~3Wa~5~7t(Ata~5(Ath~5~3Wh))),(~3~7t(Ata~5(Ath~5~3Wh))),(Wa)%7C=(Na)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "W(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) has moral worth"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "N(x)"
+          , definiens = "we should exploit (x) to any greater degree than we would tolerate for humans"
+          }
+           , { definiendum = "∃t(At(x)"
+          , definiens = "there exists a (t) that is absent in (x)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "a being"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "t"
+          , definiens = "trait"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "a"
+          , definiens = "animal"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "h"
+          , definiens = "human"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "For all things, if a being has moral worth, then we should not exploit it to any greater degree than we would tolerate for humans."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Wx→Nx))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If animals don’t have moral worth, then there exists a trait that is absent in animals such that if it were absent in humans, humans wouldn’t have moral worth."
+                  , notation = "(¬Wa→∃t(Ata→(Ath→¬Wh)))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "There doesn’t exist a trait that is absent in animals such that if it were absent in humans, humans wouldn’t have moral worth"
+                  , notation = "(¬∃t(Ata→(Ath→¬Wh)))"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, we should not exploit animals to any greater degree than we would tolerate for humans."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Na)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/AntiRewilding.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.AntiRewilding exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentAntiRewilding : Argument
+argumentAntiRewilding =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument Against Rewilding"
+    , propositionTitle = "Rewilding sentient animals is immoral."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Wx~5~3Nx)),(Wa),(~3Na~5~3F),(~3F~5Ra)|=(Ra)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "W(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) has negative rights"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "N(x)"
+          , definiens = "we should defend (x) from rights violations to any lesser degree than we would tolerate for humans"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "F"
+          , definiens = "it is permissible to subject animals to conditions that are likely to involve predation, starvation, or death due to environmental exposure to any greater degree than we would tolerate for humans"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R(a)"
+          , definiens = "rewilding sentient animals is immoral"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "a being"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "sentient animals"
+          , definiens = "a"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "For all things, if a being (x) has negative rights, then we should not defend a being (x) from rights violations to any lesser degree than we would tolerate for humans."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Wx→¬Nx))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Sentient animals have negative rights."
+                  , notation = "(Wa)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If we should not defend sentient animals from rights violations to any lesser degree than we would tolerate for humans, then it is not permissible to subject sentient animals to conditions that are likely to involve predation, starvation, or death due to environmental exposure to any greater degree than we would tolerate for humans."
+                  , notation = "(¬Na→¬F)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If it is not permissible to subject sentient animals to conditions that are likely to involve predation, starvation, or death due to environmental exposure to any greater degree than we would tolerate for humans, then rewilding sentient animals is immoral."
+                  , notation = "(¬F→Ra)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, rewilding sentient animals is immoral."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Ra)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/AntiVandalism.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.AntiVandalism exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentAntiVandalism : Argument
+argumentAntiVandalism =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument Against Zoo Vandalism"
+    , propositionTitle = "Vandalizing zoos increases the probability of harming the animals they keep."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P),(Q~5R)%7C=(R)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "P"
+          , definiens = "zoos must spend extra money cleaning graffiti"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q"
+          , definiens = "zoos will have less money to devote to animal care"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R"
+          , definiens = "vandalizing zoos increases the probability of harming the animals they keep"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "If zoos must spend extra money cleaning graffiti, then zoos will have less money to devote to animal care."
+                  , notation = "(P→Q)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Zoos must spend extra money cleaning graffiti."
+                  , notation = "(P)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If zoos will have less money to devote to animal care, then vandalizing zoos increases the probability of harming the animals they keep."
+                  , notation = "(Q→R)"
+                }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, vandalizing zoos increases the probability of harming the animals they keep."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴R)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/ColonizingNature.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.ColonizingNature exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentColonizingNature : Argument
+argumentColonizingNature =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument for the Non-Violence Displacement of Nature"
+    , propositionTitle = "We are justified in displacing nature into non-existence"
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1~3Q~1~3R~1~3S~5T),(P),(~3Q),(~3R),(~3S)%7C=(T)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "P"
+          , definiens = "the natural world contains intolerable rights violations"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q"
+          , definiens = "we know that nature is net positive or net negative for utility"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R"
+          , definiens = "there is any known practical means by which to end the rights violations beyond the use of force"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "S"
+          , definiens = "the natural world is currently instrumentally vital to facilitating human flourishing"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "T"
+          , definiens = "we are justified in displacing nature into non-existence"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "If the natural world contains intolerable rights violations and we do not know that nature is net positive or net negative for utility and there is not any known practical means by which to end the rights violations beyond the use of force and the natural world is not currently instrumentally vital to facilitating human flourishing, then we are justified in displacing nature into non-existence."
+                  , notation = "(P∧¬Q∧¬R∧¬S→T)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Nature entails intolerable rights violations."
+                  , notation = "(P)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "We do not know if nature is net positive or net negative for utility."
+                  , notation = "(¬Q)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "There is not any known practical means by which to end the rights violations beyond the use of force."
+                  , notation = "(¬R)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "The natural world is not currently instrumentally vital to facilitating human flourishing."
+                  , notation = "(¬S)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, we are justified in displacing nature into non-existence."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(T∴)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/CropDeaths.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.CropDeaths exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentCropDeaths : Argument
+argumentCropDeaths =
+    { argumentTitle = "Cropland vs Wildland Argument"
+    , propositionTitle = "Proposition"
+    , propositionSummary = "We can't claim to know that cropland kills more animals than wildland, because if we did know this, there would be evidence for it, and there isn't any such evidence."
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(~3Q)%7C=(~3P)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "P"
+          , definiens = "it is known that cropland leads to more animal death than wildland"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q"
+          , definiens = "there is evidence that cropland leads to more animal death than wildland"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "If it is known that cropland leads to more animal death than wildland, then there is evidence that cropland leads to more animal death than wildland."
+                  , notation = "(P→Q)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "There is not evidence that cropland leads to more animal death than wildland."
+                  , notation = "(P)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, it is not known that cropland leads to more animal death than wildland."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴¬P)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/DairyCowRape.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.DairyCowRape exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentDairyCowRape : Argument
+argumentDairyCowRape =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument for Dairy Cattle Being Raped"
+    , propositionTitle = "A bull mating with a cow qualifies as rape"
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Px~4(Qxy~1~3Ryx))),(Qae),(~3Rea)|=(Pa)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "P(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) qualifies as rape"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q(x,y)"
+          , definiens = "(x)  involves sexual contact with (y)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R(y,x)"
+          , definiens = "(y) renders informed consent for (x)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "an action"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "y"
+          , definiens = "an involved party"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "a"
+          , definiens = "bulls mating with cows"
+          }
+            , { definiendum = "e"
+          , definiens = "a cow"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "An action qualifies as rape if, and only if, the action involves sexual contact with an involved party and the involved party does not render informed consent for the action."
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(Px↔(Qxy∧¬Ryx)))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "A bull mating with a cow involves sexual contact with a cow."
+                  , notation = "(Qae)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "A cow does not render informed consent to a bull mating with a cow."
+                  , notation = "(¬Rea)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, a bull mating with a cow qualifies as rape."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Pa)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/EfilismPatrolSquad.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.EfilismPatrolSquad exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentEfilismPatrolSquad : Argument
+argumentEfilismPatrolSquad =
+    { argumentTitle = "The Eternal Intergalactic Sentience Patrol Squad"
+    , propositionTitle = "Efilists are committed to pragmatic natalism"
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(~3Q),(~3P~1R~5~3S),(R),(~3S~5T)|=(T)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "P"
+          , definiens = "humans abstaining from procreation maximally reduces rights violations"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q"
+          , definiens = "humans have sterilized all sentient life in the universe"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R"
+          , definiens = "many more generations are required to sterilize all sentient life in the universe"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "S"
+          , definiens = "efilists should abstain from procreation until all sentient life in the universe is sterilized"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "T"
+          , definiens = "efilists are committed to pragmatic natalism"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "If humans abstaining from procreation maximally reduces rights violations, then humans have sterilized all sentient life in the universe."
+                  , notation = "(P→Q)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Humans have not sterilized all sentient life in the universe."
+                  , notation = "(¬Q)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If humans abstaining from procreation does not maximally reduce rights violations and many more generations are required to sterilize all sentient life in the universe, then efilists should not abstain from procreation until all sentient life in the universe is sterilized."
+                  , notation = "(¬P∧R→¬S)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Many more generations are required to sterilize all sentient life in the universe."
+                  , notation = "(R)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If efilists should not abstain from procreation until all sentient life in the universe is sterilized, then efilists are committed to pragmatic natalism."
+                  , notation = "(¬S→T)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, efilists are committed to pragmatic natalism."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴T)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/EthicalSlurs.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.EthicalSlurs exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentEthicalSlurs : Argument
+argumentEthicalSlurs =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument for Using the Term Retard"
+    , propositionTitle = ""
+    , propositionSummary = ""
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Cx~4Bx)),(~6x(~3Cx~5Dx)),(~3Cr),(~3Br~1Dr~5Sr),(Sr~5Ar)%7C=(Ar)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "C(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "B(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "D(x)"
+          , definiens = "oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "S(x)"
+          , definiens = "it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "A(x)"
+          , definiens = "it is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "r"
+          , definiens = "retard"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "For all slurs, (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised if and only if, (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Cx↔Bx))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "For all slurs, if it is not the case that (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised, then oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(¬Cx→Dx))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "It is not the case that the term retard's negative connotations have been neutralised."
+                  , notation = "(¬Cr)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If the term retard has not been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage and oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of the term retard, then it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations."
+                  , notation = "(¬Br∧Dr→Sr)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations, then It is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning."
+                  , notation = "(Sr→Ar)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, it is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Ar)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/FineTuning.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.FineTuning exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentFineTuning : Argument
+argumentFineTuning =
+    { argumentTitle = "Fine Tuning Debunk"
+    , propositionTitle = "Fine tuning is an infinitely regressive explanation for God"
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~5Dx)),(Fg),(Dg~5T)%7C=(T)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "F(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) is finely tuned"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "D(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) has a designer"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "T"
+          , definiens = "fine tuning is an infinitely regressive explanation for God"
+          }
+          , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "a thing"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "g"
+          , definiens = "God's constitution"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "If something is finely tuned, then something has a designer."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Fx→Dx))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "God's constitution is finely tuned."
+                  , notation = "(Fg)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If God's constitution has a designer, then fine tuning is an infinitely regressive explanation for God."
+                  , notation = "(Dg→T)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, fine tuning is an infinitely regressive explanation for God."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴T)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/ImmortalityReductio.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.ImmortalityReductio exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentImmortalityReductio : Argument
+argumentImmortalityReductio =
+    { argumentTitle = "Appeal to Nature Immortality Reductio"
+    , propositionTitle = "Senescence does not result in death."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~5~3Rxy)),(Hs)%7C=(~3Rsd)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "H(x)"
+          , definiens = "humans undergo (x)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R(x,y)"
+          , definiens = "(x) results in (y)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "normal physiological process"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "y"
+          , definiens = "negative health outcome"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "s"
+          , definiens = "senescence"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "d"
+          , definiens = "death"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "If humans undergo a normal physiological process, then the normal physiological process does not result in a negative health outcome."
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(Hx→¬Rxy))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Humans undergo senescence."
+                  , notation = "(Hs)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, senescence does not result in death."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴¬Rsd)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/OddOrderPredators.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.OddOrderPredators exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentOddOrderPredators : Argument
+argumentOddOrderPredators =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument for Culling Odd Order Predators"
+    , propositionTitle = "It is permissible to prevent predation with lethal force to the same degree we would tolerate for humans."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Wx~5~3Nx)),(Wa),(~3Na~5F)%7C=(F)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "W(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) has negative rights"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "N(x)"
+          , definiens = "we should defend (x) from rights violations to any lesser degree than we would tolerate for humans"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "F(x)"
+          , definiens = "it is permissible to prevent predation with lethal force to the same degree we would tolerate for humans"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "a"
+          , definiens = "animal"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "For all things, if something has negative rights, then we should not defend it from rights violations to any lesser degree than we would tolerate for humans."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Wx→¬Nx))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Animals have negative rights."
+                  , notation = "(Wa)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If we should not defend animals from rights violations to any lesser degree than we would tolerate for humans, then it is permissible to prevent predation with lethal force to the same degree we would tolerate for humans."
+                  , notation = "(¬Na→F)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, it is permissible to prevent predation with lethal force to the same degree we would tolerate for humans."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴F)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/Ostroveganism.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.Ostroveganism exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentOstroveganism : Argument
+argumentOstroveganism =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument for Vegan Bivalves"
+    , propositionTitle = "Bivalves are not likely to be sentient."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Bx~4Px~1Qx~1(Rx~2Sx))),(Pc~1~3Qc~1Rc~1~3Sc),(~3Bc~5~6x(~3Nx))%7C=(~3Nb)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "B(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) counts as a brain"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "P(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) is a complex network of interconnected neurons"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Q(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) integrates neuronal pathways from multiple sensory organs"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "R(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) presents with distinct functional regions"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "S(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) presents with nuclei with white matter tracts that facilitate inter-regional communication"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "N(x)"
+          , definiens = "the corresponding (y) is likely to be sentient"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "an object"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "y"
+          , definiens = "brainless biological system into which cerebral ganglia are integrated"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "c"
+          , definiens = "cerebral ganglia"
+          }
+             , { definiendum = "b"
+          , definiens = "bivalves"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "Something counts as a brain if, and only if, something is a complex network of interconnected neurons, integrates neuronal pathways from multiple sensory organs, and presents with distinct functional regions or nuclei with white matter tracts that facilitate inter-regional communication."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Bx↔Px∧Qx∧(Rx∨Sx)))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Cerebral ganglia meet criteria one and three, but not criteria two and four."
+                  , notation = "(Pc∧¬Qc∧Rc∧¬Sc)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If cerebral ganglia do not count as brains, then the corresponding brainless biological system into which the cerebral ganglia are integrated is not likely to be sentient."
+                  , notation = "(¬Bc→∀x(¬Nx))"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, bivalves are not likely to be sentient."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴¬Nb)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/PollinationReductio.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.PollinationReductio exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentPollinationReductio : Argument
+argumentPollinationReductio =
+    { argumentTitle = "Vegan Anti-Pollination Reductio"
+    , propositionTitle = "Apples are not vegan"
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Vx~4~3Ex)),(Eb),(~3Vb~5~6y(~3Py))%7C=(~3Pa)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "V(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) is vegan"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "E(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) involves human on non-human animal exploitation"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "P(y)"
+          , definiens = "(y) generated are vegan"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "a being"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "y"
+          , definiens = "a product"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "b"
+          , definiens = "bees pollinating human crops"
+          }
+           , { definiendum = "a"
+          , definiens = "apples"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "Something is vegan if, and only if, something does not involve human on non-human animal exploitation."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Vx↔¬Ex))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Bees pollinating human crops involves human on non-human exploitation."
+                  , notation = "(Eb)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If bees pollinating human crops is not vegan, then the products generated are not vegan."
+                  , notation = "(¬Vb→∀y(¬Py))"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, apples are not vegan."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴¬Pa)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/TransPeople.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.TransPeople exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentTransPeople : Argument
+argumentTransPeople =
+    { argumentTitle = "Argument For Trans Identity"
+    , propositionTitle = "A trans person of the male sex is a woman and a trans person with female sex is a man."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Wx~4Lx~1Ox)),(~6x(Mx~4Sx~1Ox)),(La~1Oa),(Sg~1Og)%7C=(Wa~1Mg)"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "Male"
+          , definiens = "the cluster of traits that associate with small, but not large, gametes."
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "Female"
+          , definiens = "the cluster of traits that associate with large, but not small, gametes."
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "W"
+          , definiens = "(x) is a woman"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "M"
+          , definiens = "(x) is a man"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "L"
+          , definiens = "(x) possesses a sufficiently greater sum of weighted traits that more closely associate with large gametes than weighted traits that associate with small gametes"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "S"
+          , definiens = "(x) possesses a sufficiently greater sum of weighted traits that more closely associate with small gametes than weighted traits that associate with large gametes"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "O"
+          , definiens = "(x) is over 18 years of age"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "someone"
+          }
+          , { definiendum = "a"
+          , definiens = "a trans person of the male sex"
+          }
+          , { definiendum = "g"
+          , definiens = "a trans person of the female sex"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "Someone is a woman if, and only if, someone possesses a sufficiently greater sum of weighted traits that more closely associate with large gametes than weighted traits that associate with small gametes and someone is over 18 years of age."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Wx↔Lx∧Ox))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Someone is a man if, and only if, someone possesses a sufficiently greater sum of weighted traits that more closely associate with small gametes than weighted traits that associate with large gametes and someone is over 18 years of age."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Mx↔Sx∧Ox))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "A trans person of the male sex possesses a sufficiently greater sum of weighted traits that more closely associate with large gametes than weighted traits that associate with small gametes and a trans person with small gametes is over 18 years of age."
+                  , notation = "(La∧Oa)"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "A trans person of the female sex possesses a sufficiently greater sum of weighted traits that more closely associate with small gametes than weighted traits that associate with large gametes and a trans person with large gametes is over 18 years of age."
+                  , notation = "(Sg∧Og)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, a trans person of the male sex is a woman and a trans person with female sex is a man."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Wa∧Mg)"
+          }
+        ]
+    }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/VeganSocietyReductio.elm

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+module Debate.Arguments.Philosophy.VeganSocietyReductio exposing (..)
+
+import Debate.Types exposing (..)
+
+
+argumentVeganSocietyReductio : Argument
+argumentVeganSocietyReductio =
+    { argumentTitle = "Vegan Society Definition Reductio"
+    , propositionTitle = "It is vegan to eat Groot."
+    , propositionSummary = "Summary"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Vx~4~3Ex)),(~6x~6y(~3Ax~5~3E(e(y)))),(~3Ag)%7C=(V(e(g)))"
+    , definitionTable =
+        [ { definiendum = "V(x)"
+          , definiens = "it is vegan to do (x)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "E(x,y)"
+          , definiens = "(x) exploits (y)"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "A(x)"
+          , definiens = "(x) is an animal"
+          }
+            , { definiendum = "x"
+          , definiens = "a being"
+          }
+            , { definiendum = "y"
+          , definiens = "an animal"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "e"
+          , definiens = "eat"
+          }
+        , { definiendum = "g"
+          , definiens = "Groot"
+          }
+        ]
+    , argumentFormalization =
+        [ { premises =
+                [ { premise = "For all things, it is vegan to do something if and only if that thing does not exploit animals."
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Vx↔¬Ex))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "If some beings are not animals, then eating those beings does not exploit animals."
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(¬Ax→¬E(e(y))))"
+                  }
+                , { premise = "Groot is not an animal."
+                  , notation = "(¬Ag)"
+                  }
+                ]
+          , conclusion = "Therefore, it is vegan to eat Groot."
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴V(e(g)))"
+          }
+        ]
+    }