BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent persons.

Now that I have defeated the the Consequentialist value, my opponent offers Utilitarianism as a criterion. I can debate against this ideology in several ways. First, it is important to note the false dichotomy fallacy that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. This can best be explained once there is an accepted notion that killing is inherently wrong and that live is inherently valuable. If you agree with these principles, you must agree that killing is wrong whether you kill one person or five. Therefore, simply because you may be saving more lives by killing one person, the act of killing is immoral within itself and therefore cannot be morally permissible. Another argument against Utilitarianism is Kant's deontological ethics. He speaks about duty to the individual and autonomy of the will. Utilitarians do not allow for individuality and only think about what is best for the greatest number of people overall. It sounds good in theory, but can be quite cruel in a way. Why should one person die to save 5? That one person has just as much right to a life. So again, killing would not be morally permissible. (http://answers.yahoo.com...) Further, for Utilitarianism to be valid, you would need an objective observer according to Marx. The truth is, none exist. Marx notes that the theory of utility is true by definition and thus does not really add anything meaningful. For Marx, a productive inquiry would have to investigate what sorts of things are good for people; that is, what our nature (which he believes is alienated under capitalism) really is. Because some people obviously disagree (and feel that capitalism should prevail), this proves that opposing views exist in terms of deciding what is or isn't right, just or moral. Therefore Utilitarianism as a theory is flawed and is a weak argument for my opponent. So far I have argued against both Utilitarianism and Consequentialism. Back to ye.
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent persons.

Thank you for challenging me in this debate. This was the topic that got me hooked on debate even though I never got to actually debate it. Now, on the the debate. I'm sorry, but I forgot to mention my criterion, utilitarianism. please let me know if it is ok to post this information so late, if it isn't allowed, then please disregard the following part. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If by killing one innocent person, you are saving more innocent persons, that achieves utilitarianism. Now I will defend my case. my opponent said, " If I were to state that the consequence of killing one innocent person was death, and that if I didn't kill the innocent person to save others, that the result would still be death, then death is thereby the consequence of both actions and by the power of consequentialism would be morally equivalent." I am not sure how he came to this observation. The concenquences will be death either way, that is true, but the resolution lets us decide how many deaths will happen. We get to choose between one, or many deaths. Do, the best possible concenquences, and outcome is to save more lives, which is also upheld by my criterion, utilitarianism, then it is good. Let me simplify that statement. The concenquences will be grater if we kill one person, because even though we kill one person, we save more than one persons life. If we allowed the other innocent people to die, that would not be justified by my value or criterion because the concenquences would be more deaths than lives saved, thus I have justified my value and criterion.
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent persons.

The only argument Pro put forth for his case is consequentialism. Plain Consequentialism is - Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences (If there is no one best action because several actions are tied for best consequences, then of course any of those several actions would be right). So what is a consequence? In Consequentialism, the "consequences" of an action are everything the action brings about, including the action itself and everything that action causes. If I were to state that the consequence of killing one innocent person was death, and that if I didn't kill the innocent person to save others, that the result would still be death, then death is thereby the consequence of both actions and by the power of consequentialism would be morally equivalent. Therefore, I have defeated Pro's sole argument. There is also the issue that Consequentialism does not itself say what kinds of consequences are good. Hence people can agree on Consequentialism as a value while disagreeing about what kind of outcome is good or bad. That being said, I encourage that Pro either elaborate on his value or expand his argument up until this point. If need be, I will attack the very value of Consequentalism in the upcoming rounds ahead. Good luck! (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)
The Texans will reach the superbowl

Sad. This one could have gotten interesting. My Arguments standMy opponent has stated that the Texans are more likely to make it to the super bowl because he feels that they don't have adequate competition. He then uses statistics and records (with no evidence) to zoom in, completely ignoring history in it's entirety. He states that the Patriots are 6-5, I don't know if it's true and he hasn't provided evidence that it is(The Patriots are 23-16 overall[4]). What is true, however, is that the Patriots have been to the super bowl 5 times in the last 10 years. [1] That's an average of once every other year. What is also true, is that the Texans have an all-time playoff record of 1-1.[2] Last year was there first time ever making it to the playoffs, and when they made it they were taken down by the Ravens (as he stated).The Patriots do better than the Texans in post play EVERY year. As do the Ravens, they have a playoff record of 10-7.[3] For these reasons alone, it is unreasonable to conclude that the Texans will reach the super bowl. But why stop there? Last year, the Texans were beaten by the Ravens in the playoffs, and then the Ravens were beaten by the Patriots to reach the super bowl. This year, the Ravens and the Patriots are BOTH better on offense. If they couldn't stop them last year, how can they stop them this year when it clearly shows that they are better than the team the Texans are this year on paper and better than they were, themselves, last year? There is no logic in his argument, he is making leaps of faith because he has favored this team, personally. Another team, who has been to 2 of the last 4 super bowls, is the Steelers.[1] Though they are off to a rocky start, it's improbable that they won't make it to the playoffs due to their playoff consistency. There you have it, 3 teams that have proven that they can reach the SuperBowl (or even the conference championship for that matter..) before the Texans. And then they (Texans) aren't even 4th. [1]http://www.pro-football-reference.com......[2]http://www.pro-football-reference.com...... [3]http://www.pro-football-reference.com......[4]http://www.pro-football-reference.com......
The Texans will reach the superbowl

I'd like to start my debate by making aware to the public that it is impossible to use full certainty of who will reach the super bowl in week 6 (of 17) in the regular season. My opponent has laid an impossible burden of proof upon himself, and for that reason alone cannot win this debate. It doesn't say probable or have the best chance, it clearly states will. Moving into his arguments just for fun...My opponent has stated that the Texans are more likely to make it to the super bowl because he feels that they don't have adequate competition. He then uses statistics and records (with no evidence) to zoom in, completely ignoring history in it's entirety. He states that the Patriots are 6-5, I don't know if it's true and he hasn't provided evidence that it is(The Patriots are 23-16 overall[4]). What is true, however, is that the Patriots have been to the super bowl 5 times in the last 10 years. [1] That's an average of once every other year. What is also true, is that the Texans have an all-time playoff record of 1-1.[2] Last year was there first time ever making it to the playoffs, and when they made it they were taken down by the Ravens (as he stated).The Patriots do better than the Texans in post play EVERY year. As do the Ravens, they have a playoff record of 10-7.[3] For these reasons alone, it is unreasonable to conclude that the Texans will reach the super bowl. But why stop there? Last year, the Texans were beaten by the Ravens in the playoffs, and then the Ravens were beaten by the Patriots to reach the super bowl. This year, the Ravens and the Patriots are BOTH better on offense. If they couldn't stop them last year, how can they stop them this year when it clearly shows that they are better than the team the Texans are this year on paper and better than they were, themselves, last year? There is no logic in his argument, he is making leaps of faith because he has favored this team, personally. Another team, who has been to 2 of the last 4 super bowls, is the Steelers.[1] Though they are off to a rocky start, it's improbable that they won't make it to the playoffs due to their playoff consistency. There you have it, 3 teams that have proven that they can reach the SuperBowl (or even the conference championship for that matter..) before the Texans. And then they (Texans) aren't even 4th. [1]http://www.pro-football-reference.com...[2]http://www.pro-football-reference.com... [3]http://www.pro-football-reference.com...[4]http://www.pro-football-reference.com...
The Texans will reach the superbowl

Thanking to responding to my debate. If you look in to the AFC deeply now, there are only two other elite teams besides the Texans. Patriotsand Ravens. You know that the Texans will make it to the playoffs, with the weak lack of talent in the AFC. I wont argue about them going to the playoffs because you can't find six better teams. You will probably disagree that the Texans will be the number seed in the playoffs. From looking in to the season right now, i believe that in the diviional round, they will face the Patriots. In the last 11 postseason games of Brady's career, he is 6-5. Between the end of Superbowl 42 and before the four years in took Brady to get back in a winning postseason record of Superbowl 46. He was 0-2. The AFC Championship will feature the Ravens @ Texans, a rematch of last years divional round. The Texans lost to the team 20 - 13 with a rookie backup quarterback and a wide reciever coming of an injury. Matt Schuab and the Texans will have homefield advantage to beat the Ravens
THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools

So we see that con has also brought into this scene that corporal punishment is physical use so i simply see that this would not work because it hardly benefits the student being punished and it also doesn't teach him that what he was doing was wrong. Secondly we see that this is a mistrust issue thus far and i see that the child would resent the teacher for and we cannot deny this fact because we are talking about teenagers at the moment and they are at a stage of mistrust and hatred to most figures in their lives. Now onto how I believe it will affect the child. I see that this entire idea of corporal punishment revolves around the fact that it creates a strict environment but i see that you cant create a safe learning environment out of fear children wont seek to do their best, learn what they can and wont try to be creative because of the fact that they will be scared that these ideas will result in corporal punishment. It oppresses the children and creates an environment where they can as parents think it is fine to do something similar to their children if they had it done to them. Rather i see that by giving them positive reactions to their positive behavior over punishing their negative behavior they will strive to be better and do positive things thank you
THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools

First I agree with Corporal Punishment should not be the only way to "encourage" pupils.. In my point of view, physical punishment should not only include hitting but should also include other kinds of physical actives; e.g running laps. In the modern society, as in more developed countries, Teachers will get in deep trouble for any corporal punishment towards their pupils, however, in many family, they still believe corporal punishment is the quickest way to punishment misbehaving child. If a child is about to preform a dangerous move, enforcing corporal punishment will make them remember better not to perform a certain activities in the future. Secondly, if verbal warning or shouting cannot stop the pupil misbehaving, physical punishment should take place. To argue your point on ruining the child teacher relationship, I believe as long as the reason of punishment was correct, it should not be any problem because there is a good purpose for the punishment.
THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools

Thank you for accepting. What we see in today's society child abuse is shunned upon and i personally believe that this must have some backing behind it after all if a person simply hits a child because they get an answer wrong or do not do their homework or misbehave is simply wrong. I shall be looking at the two role players in this argument namely the teachers and pupils: The teachers I see this as the teachers easy way out, rather than just trying to find out why this child is misbehaving,not doing his homework and trying to find out his problems the teacher just hits the child and solves his troubles. This will ruin the child teacher relationship and ruin the child's trust in the teacher and hinder creative thinking
Atheism is the belief that there is no god

Recent changes to the definition of atheism states that it is a lack of belief towards god/gods, and that this definition of an atheist does not have to prove anything because they neither accept nor deny the notions that god exists or god does not exist. I am defending the traditional definition of atheism which states that it is a belief that god does not exist, and that the notion of suspending judgement fits the term agnostic rather than atheist. For the purposes of this discussion the word God refers to the monotheistic god traditionally held by the abrahamic religions together with its often cited properties (omnipresent, all-knowing, just, etc.) Thank you and good luck.
Gay Marriage/Rights

"SSM should be allowed, because there is no valid reason not to allow SSM." But first, we must see what valid really is. Philosophically speaking, there is nothing that is truly valid. We only question, and we 'decide' what is valid. Corrected: there is nothing that is inherently valid. In that sense, what we must see is that in a utilitarian sense, allowing SSM is not a very good choice. Here are the reasons why. Rights Often or not, once a right is given, the right leads to another right. In a sense, when accepting SSM, we are accepting homosexuals into our society. Most argue they do not care of, and will allow homosexuals if they don't get in their 'eyes'. That argument will most certainly be ablast when homosexuals start demanding the right to be public, the right to express their love for each other, and so on. Nobody, not even homosexuals wants to be segregated, and no one wants to be chained. But if homosexuals do indeed get their freedom, many heterosexuals may find it repulsive, and that is not for the greater good. Because we're sacrificing the many for the few. Even though we are taught to uphold even the minority, this just isn't the 'valid' way to speak our generosity. Genetics does not solely contribute to homosexuality Source: http://www.narth.com... Homosexuality is actually the result of a very complex process of social system around the person leading to the state of being 'homosexual'. In that sense, it is a social disease, that can possibly be cured through psychological procedures. And, it gets rid of the argument of 'born that way, and because of it, it is okay'. Dillema If, and if by any chance the cause of homosexuality was actually genetic, and a genetic procedure was developed that would 'turn' the homosexuals 'normal'. A love for same-sex will not be the same love once someone starts being heterosexual. In a sense, the once homosexual couple might find it repulsive to think they ever were like that. Likewise, even if the cause of homosexuality wasn't genetic, but if a hormonic/psychological procedure was developed to rid of homosexuality, one would end up in a dillema of whether to or not to proceed. In a sense, utiltarian point of view comes in. Still, the vast majority are not homosexual. Most when they say are okay, have no idea what they're talking about. Religion http://factsanddetails.com... In confucianism, it deals with beliefs of 'well-ordered world'. In order to have order, they sought to have proper and well-coded social relationships with people. Their belief was that that order was natural, and the relationships have meaning. And in one of their 'five virtues', there was the relationship between man and woman, that man and woman had a natural duty to mate. It takes from the philosophy of social piety, which revolves around 'well order'. It also closely relates to utilitarian, which strongly disagree with SSM. In conclusion, there are some things we must sacrifice for our own good. Our future will be a better future without SSM, and that is if not a fact, the truth.
Gay Marriage/Rights

I accept your challenge, and in this debate, I shall be the contender of this debate. Where as you will 'allow' me to make my opening statements, I will simply not. However, I will condition a few things. - Gay marriage refers to the same sex marriage, where as I will simply say SSM to refer to such. Also, gay refers only to men, so the word usage is limited. I will be against SSM, which refers to both gay and lesbian. - Religious arguments will hold the same value as any other arguments. - [1] Genetics will refer to the effects of genome, which arbitrarily is confused with the academic branch of science. - [2] Religious will refer to religion in general. Arguments from any text of the listed religion next to this will be valid. (Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Bahai, Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism) [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...; (definition #2) [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...; (definition #1) Resolve: SSM should not be allowed.
is it okay to disobey your parents

In his argument, Con claims that "The bible tells people to honor their mom and dad. What do you guys think? Please vote dor your side. "So, since some religious textbook from 5000 years ago tells us to honor our parents, we should do so? No. Also, Con has failed to show what "honor" your parents means. Does it mean to obey them? Con was very unclear here as well. Also, Con has failed to show where the Bible says to "honor our mom and dad". and why it is relevant in the 21st century. As Fredrick Nietzsche said, "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. " If we feel like we must honor our father and mother, than we can do so. But if we dont, we are not obligated too.
Death penalty should be allowed

So my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I would like to continue with my argument right away. There can always be wrong convictions. According to statistics, in Illinois, there are about 20 wrong convictions a year. Would we really want to allow death penalty and allow innocent deaths? There is a Korean movie called "Miracle in Cell no.7" It is about a man who has a mental disability and is wrongly convicted of raping and murder. At the end, he gets executed because he wasn"t able to tell the truth about his innocence. Do we really want innocent deaths? By allowing death penalty, we are allowing all the people who are wrongly convicted of crimes to die an innocent death? Should that be justified? The obvious answer is a no. Because I strongly oppose to the justification of innocent executions, I would like to prevent the allowing of death penalty.
Death penalty should be allowed

I would like to begin round two with one argument. First, I strongly believe that it is immoral. This argument is divided into two parts. First, how the government is actually letting themselves kill the citizens. Second, how it will be sending out the wrong message. (1) The government is justifying themselves to kill the citizens. In a way, the government is making a contradiction. According to the law, killing people is not justified. In other words, killing people is banned. If murdering is banned for individuals, the government should not be killing either. Of course my opponent (the proposition) may argue that people who had done serious crimes that had caused a detrimental harm to the society should be killed for the rest of the citizens' safety and happiness. For example, they may say that the family of the victim (of a murder incident, or any other violence) will become more relieved. However, then what about the murderer's family? Why is this society only respecting one side and not even thinking about the other? In any way, I believe that the government should not have the justification to kill the citizens. (2) Not doing the duty as a government. Isn't the government there to protect the citizens? However, if the government starts killing people who are criminals, then it will not be fulfilling the duty as a government. The proposition, of course, can argue that murdering criminals who did crimes would be able to protect the rest of the society, but there are two points of rebuttal. First, I believe that there are better ways to treat criminals. Is the only way to deter the crime rates to kill somebody? I think that criminals can be put in prison and be limited in many different rights, but as a government, the government itself should not be violating the right to live. Second, will executing people actually deter the crime rates? The answer is a no. Just because the government executes people who do crimes doesn't mean that there would be less criminals, because there are still mentally ill people, and some psychopaths who don't know anything. Not only that, the government has to be responsible to create a policy that has a problem that is solved. However, this policy, the government executing, will not solve any problem but instead, will only give the government too much power.
The death penalty should be legalized

I have to apologise to my opponent. As a result of the circumstances I mentioned in the first round (emergency travel and very intermittent access to the Internet), I will not be able to research and put up a satisfactory response to my opponent's arguments in time. If my opponent is willing, I would like to hold off on this debate for now, and continue it at a mutually beneficial time. If my opponent does not agree, I am willing to concede this debate at this point.