BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
logic determines right and wrong and thus morality

I accept. I would like to provide the following definitions:Logic: The study of the principles of correct reasoning. (1)Morality: A code of conduct, either a code put forward by society, a group or an individual, or a code that would be put forward by all rational persons given certain conditions. (2)My opponent says that logic determines right and wrong and thus morality. However, as logic only studies the principles of correct reasoning, a logical deduction with false premises is still logical.For example:P1: Genocide is morally correct.P2: The Holocaust was a genocide.C: Therefore, the Holocaust was morally correct.The above syllogism is logically sound. However, its first premise is wrong, so while it is a valid syllogism, it is not necessarily morally correct. It is not considered morally correct by most societies, groups, individuals and rational persons. This shows us that logic alone cannot determine what is right and what is wrong, and therefore incapable of defining morality.(1) http://philosophy.hku.hk...(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
logic determines right and wrong and thus morality

I will assume that my opponent's first statement is an imperative one, asking that I write with closed eyes. I suppose typing with my eyes closed last round did not constitute writing. I will now try again. I offer a scan of my writing below as proof: However, I still fail to see how this pertains to logic, nor how this proves logic determines morality. To conclude, my opponent has failed to offer a valid argument to support the resolution, and has dropped my sole argument disproving it.
cause and effect is logic

Rage against the machine is life, mcd menu is the true if blue. So since Pro has not used any sources I'm gonna do that and win by having better sources. This was the source of my genius argumentshttps://kevinspraggettonchess.files.wordpress.com...And of course I would like to thank ultimate source of wisdom: Deepak Chopra. Though it was very close and interesting debate I urge you to vote Con since I offered only and good looking source.Also remember that making a tea explores cosmic choices. Thx Pro on your unique arguing style.
cause and effect is logic

Hi vi-spex you living legend of debate org. Now I will try to win this debate by using Deepak Chopra meme generator to help me and see how well it goes just for the fun. So my opening statement is: Nature explores irrational chaos so wholeness comprehends immortal energy = Death embraces new mortalityThis shows us that logic is relative based upon the premises with which we feed our logical argument. If those premises are not consistent with reality then logic is useless. Unless the hidden meaning is the ground of quantum fulfillment.
One of the issues in your profile.

6% of murderers repeat their crime. If they are executed, then they can't repeat their crime." --> 6% of murderers repeat their crime? What of the 94% who don't repeat their crime? Clearly, the majority of killers do not make the same mistake again and therefore have a chance to repent and reform. "Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders....Read this: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... " --> Every execution prevents 8 murders? Doesn't that contradict your previous statement which says that only 6% of murderers repeat their crime? "Generally murder is considered bad. I don't know about you, but I think murder is pretty immoral. Also, I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. I am causing more good by executing this person, because I am saving innocent lives." --> Indeed murder is bad. That, however, doesn't justify executing the murderer because the act of execution is also considered murder. More good is also not caused by executing the murderer because it is in human nature that we, as people, are able to change and be reformed. "The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty numerous times. It is not cruel and it is not unusual. It is a legal punishment." --> Legal does not equal just. The Supreme Court's decisions are based on human judgement which is fallible. Taking away a HUMAN life sounds pretty cruel to me. The accused person could be someone's parent or someone's children. Tearing families apart is very heartless thing to do. "The odds of an innocent being executed are minuscule. Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person." --> The chances of an innocent being executed may be small, but yet the risk is still there. 25 people have been wrongfully executed since the start of this century. The reason for you supporting the death penalty is to protect the lives of the innocent and prevent their murder. How is this possible when innocents are being executed? Therefore, it is nothing like Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person. Innocent people have ALREADY been killed. "6% of murderers let out on parole repeat their crime. Face it, some things never change." --> Indeed, SOME people (the 6%) will never change. But what of the 94% who do change? They deserve the chance to change. Executing them will prevent that from happening. "Saving lives is most certainly just, and that's what execution does, it saves lives. It is not wrong to kill an evil person. Even if we look at it from a deontological perspective, we are justified in killing them, because we are still treating them as an end, albeit a bad one." --> Saving lives is just, but not when it occurs at the expense of others' lives. No one person is truly evil and nor is one person completely good. People can change and preventing that from happening is the true evil. The death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. An eye for an eye and the world will be blind.
One of the issues in your profile.

"--> The death penalty takes away the life of a person which is most certainly not considered saving a life." I should say, the death penalty saves innocent lives. 6% of murderers repeat their crime. If they are executed, then they can't repeat their crime. That's saving lives. "-->Which statistics show that? Who researched it? It is impossible to prove this because once a criminal is murdered, it is impossible to tell how many people he/she they might have killed (if they kill any at all) had they been allowed to live." Read this: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... "-->What makes a person bad? What makes a person good? Everyone has done something wrong in their life. No one is righteous. Therefore it is impossible to to sentence a "bad" person to death and have the action considered just." Generally murder is considered bad. I don't know about you, but I think murder is pretty immoral. Also, I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. I am causing more good by executing this person, because I am saving innocent lives. Clearly execution is the way to go. "The 7th amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty clearly falls under the category of "cruel and unusual punishments" because it takes away a person's life which is one of the inalienable rights (rights that cannot be taken away.)" The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty numerous times. It is not cruel and it is not unusual. It is a legal punishment. "Humans are also fallible. Therefore, human judgement is fallible. This makes the death penalty a faulty and imperfect form of punishment. Once a person has been executed, and new evidence appears and proves them innocent, there is no way to bring the executed person back to life. However, if there was no death penalty, and the person was simply sentenced to a life sentence in jail. When the new evidence appears, the accused person can be released from jail." The system of appeals that we use for capital crimes is so thorough that inmates on Death Row are 6 times more likely to be let out on an appeal than they are to be executed. The odds of an innocent being executed are miniscule. Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person. "Even if the accused person really did commit the crime, I believe that humans have the ability to change. If you kill the guilty person, they will never have time to repent nor will they ever have time to change." 6% of murderers let out on parole repeat their crime. Face it, some things never change. "Killing a person, whatever the reason, is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right." Saving lives is most certainly just, and that's what execution does, it saves lives. It is not wrong to kill an evil person. Even if we look at it from a deontological perspective, we are justified in killing them, because we are still treating them as an end, albeit a bad one. I affirm the death penalty.
One of the issues in your profile.

The death penalty saves lives." --> The death penalty takes away the life of a person which is most certainly not considered saving a life. "Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders." -->Which statistics show that? Who researched it? It is impossible to prove this because once a criminal is murdered, it is impossible to tell how many people he/she they might have killed (if they kill any at all) had they been allowed to live. "So basically, I kill a bad guy..." -->What makes a person bad? What makes a person good? Everyone has done something wrong in their life. No one is righteous. Therefore it is impossible to to sentence a "bad" person to death and have the action considered just. The 7th amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty clearly falls under the category of "cruel and unusual punishments" because it takes away a person's life which is one of the inalienable rights (rights that cannot be taken away.) Humans are also fallible. Therefore, human judgement is fallible. This makes the death penalty a faulty and imperfect form of punishment. Once a person has been executed, and new evidence appears and proves them innocent, there is no way to bring the executed person back to life. However, if there was no death penalty, and the person was simply sentenced to a life sentence in jail. When the new evidence appears, the accused person can be released from jail. Even if the accused person really did commit the crime, I believe that humans have the ability to change. If you kill the guilty person, they will never have time to repent nor will they ever have time to change. Killing a person, whatever the reason, is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Your abortion/late term abortion stance does not hold water.

You are wrong my friend. Mother Earth does abort people. What I am saying is that Mother Earth aborts her children, they go to hell. When they go to Heaven, then they live and are not aborted. I am embracing the idea that there is a heaven and a hell and that Earth is just the womb that determines our futures. I thank you much and I consider you a friend. Enjoy yourself and maybe too, you will know the truth about cheekys. - Cheeks
Your abortion/late term abortion stance does not hold water.

My argument is flawless. I am stating that the abortion is done via mother earth, that she aborts her evil babies to hell late term, but that in the early parts of life, a human can be deemed neith good nor evil. Therefore it is only in the late term of her pregnancy can she decide to allow the baby to live an eternity in heaven, or forever die in the pits of hell. It is in my remarks that I advocate that there is a heaven and that there is a hell. Thanks, Cheeks
Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.

I will use this speech to further strengthen my constructive, and refute my opponents refutations. My opponent argues that it does not make sense to legal PEDs with the intention of leveling the playing field. However, I have provided evidence that says that a majority of athletes in some sports use PEDs. Because of this, it is incredibly difficult to eradicate PEDs. This has been seen recently in sports such as baseball. Despite continuous effort by Major League Baseball to take PEDs away from the game, PED use is still widely present. This shows that it would simply be less cumbersome to allow everyone to use PEDs than to attempt to remove them entirely. My opponent also observes that PEDs increase chemical achievement instead of human achievement. However, I have shown that professional athletes still are incredibly skilled, regardless of whether or not they use PEDs. Furthermore, I have shown that people do in fact celebrate "chemical" achievement. An example of this would be the MLB Home Run races in the 1990's, when a majority of the contenders used PEDs. During this point in MLB history, there were more fans and spectators than ever before, which shows celebration of what my opponent dubs "chemical achievement." So, it is clear that PEDs do not eliminate human achievement, and any chemical achievement that they provide is still celebrated. My opponent refutes my argument regarding the inherent dangers of sports by comparing it to teachers and welders who use cocaine. This argument cannot be weighed in this debate for two reasons. First, Professional Athletes are paid much more than welders or teachers. Second, PEDs are much less dangerous than using cocaine. Professional Athletes are being paid much more than teachers or welders, and they are also submitting themselves to the inherent danger of their sports. And I would observe that this argument was mainly put into my constructive speech to show that the dangers of PEDs do not come close to outweighing the inherent dangers of sports. Because of this, the contention regarding the dangers of PEDs cannot be weighed highly. My opponent finally argues that chemical achievement will never be celebrated, as all that people celebrate is human achievement. I do accept that people embrace human achievement in sports, as I even said that in my constructive speech. However, I have also shown that chemical achievement can be celebrated, which increases the appeal to watch professional sports. So, it is clear that PEDs do in fact level the playing field, make sports more appealing, and should in fact be legalized in professional sports. So, I affirm the resolution that Performance Enhancing Drugs should be permitted in professional sports, and I urge a pro ballot.
Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.

To refute my opponent's arguments and his responses to my own, one by one: 1. "Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing" Response: Not only should they not be legalized, there should be more enforcement to keep them out of sports. It's not a strong argument to say "some people are doing it anyway, we might as well make it legal so everyone can". Some people do cocaine! Furthermore, rich athletes from wealthier countries will have access to the latest, highest-quality PEDs while poorer athletes from poorer countries which don't have the same medical or scientific advances will not be able to keep up. As long as PEDs are available (or even legal), the playing field won't ever be level. PEDs are one of the largest factors that make the playing field not be level, because they give a foothold to wealth and country of origin as deciders of athletic performance. 2. "One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports." Response: Allowing PEDs would raise the level of competition in an extremely uneven manner, and we would showcase chemical achievement instead of human achievement (as outlined in my first argument). 3. "My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs." Response: I would call it an invalid argument to say that, because what they do is dangerous already, it doesn't matter that PEDs could make their lives more dangerous. All people are under the law and the law should protect all people. Welders have a more dangerous career than teachers, but it isn't any less against the law for them to use cocaine. 4. "My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. [...] Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision." Response: I agree that there is a side of sports not affected by PEDs, but I think that this argues my side of the debate more than it does yours- we will celebrate the same skills, changed or unchanged by PEDs, as human achievement. The use of PEDs therefore does not increase this human achievement and should not be celebrated, it only adds chemical achievement to what is already amazing. This is not something we want to celebrate, as it is outside of the central philosophy of sport, and it is certainly not worth the health risks or other disparities (as outlined above) the PEDs would bring to sport at any level.
Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.

I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, "A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2)." This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org...
Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.

As am I, thank you for accepting Pro! PEDs should not be permitted for use in professional sports (or sports at any level) for a number of reasons. First and foremost, PEDs present an enormous health risk for athletes that use them. They lead to many severe health problems, including but not limited to heart and circulatory problems, psychiatric disorders and inhibited growth and development (http://www.mayoclinic.org... and http://www.livestrong.com...). The law, in the broader view of things, aims to generally protect people from making poor decisions. If all people are treated as equals under the law, it is the duty of the law to aim to protect athletes just as it aims to protect drug users. It is therefore the responsibility of the law to warn athletes away from taking performance enhancing drugs. In the broader scope of sport, it can be appreciated that teenage athletes who train among adult ones or share the same coaches would also turn to PEDs used by the people around them (were PEDs legalized and accessible), which would not only pose even more serious health concerns but also set trends about drug culture in general, spreading the reach of recreational drug use even further. Sports are enjoyed by people because they are a visual demonstration of what human beings can achieve, individually or collectively. They are designed to amaze and put on a show, and we watch them to celebrate this human achievement. If athletes took PEDs, we would be celebrating chemical achievement, instead. Thus, PEDs could be appreciated to undermine the central philosophy of sport. Finally, a counterargument could be that not all athletes would need to take PEDs and some may choose not to without consequence- however, this is not true. Even if some athletes uphold moral or health standards to not take PEDs, they have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to be successful, they will also have to take drugs. Allowing any athletes to take PEDs means no longer protecting any athletes, even ones that don't want to use dangerous drugs, from these things. This is exemplified in the American Scientific Magazine: "Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a "clean" rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...). Two more websites consulted: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org... http://www.usada.org... Your move! :)