BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

"Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable...", this however does not make it moral nor fulfill the criteria I set forth in my argument. The moral implications of slaying Bob as a vigilante are non-existent as you present the partial quotation as per, "Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable [ however vigilante justice rarely uses all available resources since it doesn't rely on the public system at all. ]", within context which means that the death of Bob would involve, in relation to resources, contacting the authorities and acquiring help and using public services in an attempt to cease this behavior. There is no concession in half a statement. You have to provide reasoning to believe that not invoking the authorities will allow Bob to slay another person as you have evidence again Bob as well as his manifesto expressing his plans which would allow for greater protection of the person. If the vigilante is overcome then no one is protected and everyone is returned to a state of terror however if help were sought to say the least protection could be offered and greater community awareness could prevent losses. You are proposing that Bob will strike before any form of report to the authorities made in an emergency fashion would take hold? Is that reasonable though? There is no reason to believe that Bob will escape if the authorities are told. In your scenario Bob is not posing an imminent threat thus why you argue that Defense of Others is not expansive enough therefore it is unlikely that Bob will be acting with any form of immediacy and thus the notion that Bob will slay again before anyone can do anything has no grounds. Historically real serial killers do not kill in rapid succession and do so over years so it is unrealistic to believe that invoking the authorities will take longer than Bob to strike and if Bob was due to strike against a person within a time period where it was imperative to move quickly, say within a week, using the emergency system (911) is appropriate as it is an active death threat with proof of malicious intent and thus Defense of Others is overridden again by the system already in place.
'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

"Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable" con concedes the point. i said it would be a last resort in killing bob. in terms of community risk, not engaging in vigialaeeism means bob will get away and kill someone else. trying to get authortities will give him chance to get away. our best bet is to kill bob as a vigilantee. con also acts of if it would be the moal thing to do to get authortiiew involved. but that would be the immoral thing to do. if we try to get autortiesi, bob will get away and kill again. the only moralt hing as a last resort in stopping him, is to kill him
'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

In relation to "Loss of Opportunity" the odds of capturing Bob go up if there is a large force able to subdue him versus a vigilante effort of a single person or a small group of persons who may be hindered in their efforts by the citizens they are trying to protect. Killing Bob as a last resort if all available efforts have been made to capture him is reasonable however vigilante justice rarely uses all available resources since it doesn't rely on the public system at all. In relation to Community Risk if you cannot catch Bob and you tell the authorities now you have a failed attempt at vigilantism and the action you should have done in the first place being held against you by the community at large. His "getting away" as an eventuality is also questionable; if Bob had been caught unaware of your knowledge and a plan had been coordinated the odds of his escape would likely drastically drop presuming that the knowledge you hold or held is valuable anymore. Bob, if he does flee, will not stay within the vicinity of your reach therefore he only poses a new threat to another community. He'll move pretty far and lay low for a while as seen in real serial killers. Vigilantism has a high degree of risk, it is not safe, it is not suggested, and if he isn't being a hero then he isn't being a vigilante. As for the immoral stance it is unethical to kill Bob without taking every precaution in order to uphold the law and increasing the danger to himself and possible to other communities is also not a necessary risk so it's not for the greater good to do so puts the morality of the situation on shaky ground and his vigilantism does constitute premeditated murder which is definitely immoral if not amoral. It is unforeseeable that the vigilante, even using esoteric knowledge of what to do and how to do it up to killing Bob, has the moral high ground. The key problem is that there is nothing that makes it moral. Even under Utilitarian thought I cannot configure how it's ethical or moral for Bob to die by the hands of our vigilante.
'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

'loss of opportunity'. if there is a way to capture bob that seems reasonable, then that is highest priority. if it is such that kiling bob is the only way to stop him, then the loss of information is just the price we pay. community risk. if you can't catch bob, tell the authorities. he's going to get away one way or the othe, and the fact you tried killing him or stopping him doesn't change that, doesn't change the risk to the community. the vigilantee does have a degee of risk. he doesn't have to be a hero. but if he does, it would not necesssarily be immoral. the vigilantee in this scenario has a high degree of certittude for everything needed to stop bob up tio killing him if necesssarh
'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

Defense of Others is not limited in practice and vigilantism is not something to be encouraged. Within the context of Bob the Serial Killer if a person has all of this evidence and proof of an intention to slay ( which are death threats ) along with that manifesto containing the victims he has previously taken there is no reason to believe that not attempting to go through the legal chain of command would be suitable as a means to halt his slayings. There are three reasons: 1. Risk to Self: If Bob the Serial Killer slays the vigilante before the information is shared Bob is free to continue killing. Sitting on the information and not sharing it immediately only poses a risk to the vigilante who, if found out before he can act himself, risks the esoteric knowledge he holds on Bob's intentions. 2. Risk to Community: If Bob the Serial Killer is slayed without proof that he actually performed the murders he who should be vilified may end up being mourned with the vigilante facing criminal justice anyway. Alternatively Bob may simply flee if the vigilante fails to kill him letting him loose upon the world; if for some reason he escapes the esoteric knowledge is useless as there is no means to track Bob therefore the community is in even graver danger than before as Bob will be far more cautious about his behaviors. 3. Loss of Opportunity: If Bob is dead Bob cannot be questioned so all information regarding cases that may have gone cold from his previous slayings are forever left unsolved as well as any other valuable information. Bob also cannot be studied to further criminology and while his death may have prevented further slayings it served no purpose in further combating and preventing and rehabilitating if possible serial killers in the future.
'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral bob is a serial killer on the run and's shown every reason he'll continue killing. you see him by chance at a state park. a high reason to think if you try to call authorities he will get away. u have a gun- moral to kill him? remember, 'defense of others' as a legal and moral system is often said to be only permissible if the pending harm to another is 'imminent' which usually is said to mean 'right about to occur'. here we are talking just about morality. all i'm trying to show is that it is *not inherently* immoral to kill him. -I realize usually, there would usually be a lot of uncertainties that need established, the for sure ID of bob, that he was a serial killer, that he intends to kill again. but, it is possible that most of this can be known with a high degree of certitude, even 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. for example, if the man who sees bob saw him kill his brother, and neighbor, on separate occasions, and has other info on his killings, and his manifesto on future killings. -sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done. I realize that bob is not a jury when finding info even above and beyond 'a reasonable doubt'. but, he shouldn't need to be. the right to a jury first of all is to protect against the government, not a vigilante. and, if we rely on justice through the government to take its course, according to the hypo, there is a high probable chance bob won't get caught, and will kill again. so we see this as the necessary conclusion to someone who insists on "doing it the proper way". is this acceptable as a necessary conclusion? no, no it's not.
Religion has no essence

Role: I am Con so I need to connect religion and essence and provide that there is positive evidence of that fact.Readers/Voters: Normally I would start my arguments now - however I have already detected laziness on behalf of Pro, who has not yet made any substantiated arguments nor outlined their responsibilities in this debate.My concerns: The dilemma I am faced with is, do I try and educate Pro - is it my responsibility? - do I have the right?Argument 1: Pro would lose this debate in any high school in the western world simply because of the shallowness of his thinking. Readup on the mean of the word debate https://en.wikipedia.org... Debateto understand the intellectual combat ground, its history and values.
There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms.

Please see the comment section for Pro's argument.The thought that guns would protect us if our government becomes tyrannical is laughable. In 2008 congress approval was at 18% and Bush was at 29%. No revolt happened. How much do we have to hate the government we elected before it is tyranny? But let’s consider if we would revolt, the government has drones. The government you fear may become tyrannical, can kill you from a computer. Pro even notes a link that claims the US is doing it overseas You then go on to talk about Hitler. I invoke Godwin’s law,[4] but more over I note Japan where there was only 11 gun homicides in 2008 a gun ownership rate of 0.6 out of 100.[5](USA 88.8out of 100[2]) Pro is not suggesting Japan is on the verge of tyranny. “So if you believe in an assault weapon ban, you must believe that we also have to ban handguns. Because handguns account for more than 16 times the deaths of rifles.” I have been vague in my talking about what rules we should have on guns. This is because it is not the topic at hand. The idea at hand is should there be rules/more rules or should there be no rules/no new rules. Pro goes on to suggest we should take away utility blades and pad our hands because they kill more than rifles do, ignoring how I have noted above, that guns are the only tool intended to enter flesh to inflict harm. Pro’s last paragraph is so conflicted. It starts with a rant about how the government does all these horrible things. Then it ends with “It's time to take control. We are a REPUBLIC. We set up a government by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE. It's time to act like it for once.” Pro forgot “of the PEOPLE” This government he rants against he is a part of, we all are. Pro has failed to prove his stance that “There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms.” Or the revised proposition “that there should not be any new laws to restrict the use of firearms to healthy, mentally stable American citizens.”/”no future laws should be added to restrict gun ownership.” I think the most telling dropped argument is that Pro did not comment on the idea that new gun laws may decrease the likelihood of home intruders being armed. I have suggested that new gun laws if reasonable are a good thing. Background checks in the case of every gun purchase is an example of this. Pro failed to address any of my arguments. I ask the voter to vote Con. [4] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [5] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms.

Over the past couple of months, there has been a huge sway towards gun control. So many people think that we will be safer without guns. They are wrong. The problem is that the Second Amendment was set up so we the people can bear arms to protect our self from the government. Nowadays, people think it's for hunting and sport shooting. It isn't. Sure, people die in the U.S from guns. But they also die from car accidents, drunk drivers, curable diseases, and gang activities. Why are you putting so much blame on gun owners? When someone is stabbed to death, you think "What a terrible person. How could he do that?" When someone is murdered with an ax, you say "This is such a terrible man. Who could do such a thing?" But when someone is shot, you automatically attack the guns. Like it's the guns fault, and not the person that is holding the smoking barrel. There will always be crazy, psychotic, deranged people out there, and they will continue to kill. They don't care whether you give them a knife or a gun. So stop putting all the blame on the guns. And sure, the ban of 30 round magazines seems plausible. But let me ask you this. (In a hypothetical situation, I'm not a killer) I can walk into a school just like Adam Lanza did with a vest full of ten round clips. I can easily carry 200 rounds of ammo (more than Adam fired). Now, although I can't shoot 30 rounds rapidly, I can shoot ten. And how long do you think it takes to reload? Ever see an experienced gunman reload an AR-15? He can do it faster than you can turn around and run. So what is this ban going to do? I can take down 5 people easily, then hit my side of my rifle to drop my mag, while pulling one out of my belt or vest and slapping her in for 10 more rounds, and keep on shooting. Sure, it'll be a pain to reload, but when a crazy, lunatic killer is shooting, I'm sure he doesn't mind the imposition. The answer to stop mass shootings isn't to ban the weapons. People are too quick to trade their freedom for security. If gun control will work, we should make Methamphetamine illegal too.
Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights

Taxing the fast food industry won"t help. Irresponsible parents just would give more money to their children for this kind of food. People who do illegal drugs are supposed to spend their time in prison rather than enjoy comfort of home life. If that is not the case then there is something wrong with executive power in the country.Before becoming a parent one has to realize that he/she is responsible for the health of the child. You first need to learn what causes obesity and then have a child.
Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights

Yes, parents need to be responsible for letting their child become overweight. It is much easier for people to become overweight today because of all of the quick and cheap foods such as McDonald's, Burger King, Little Debbie's. These foods should be taxed more. People do not make the time to learn how to prevent fattness. There are people who do illegal drugs and have 4 children and are on welfare. Yet, they still have their children.
Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights

You are right, parents cannot prevent their children from becoming obese unless they are aware how to do it. But nowadays there is a lot of information on this issue: online, books, TV, doctors etc. etc. And yet childhood obesity is one of the most serious health challenges for our century. Some parents simply do not care about the issue and are reluctant to get educated. And something has to be done to change it. Parents have to be legally responsible for letting their child become obese!
Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights

Yes, the risk for developing various health issues increases. We as humans need to remember that most people are not educated about the health issues that will arise from being obese. This should not be overlooked. People can not talk about obesity without talking about education on obesity. So yes, this debate is just as much about education as obesity. Should kids be taken away from their parents for not having control over their parents influenced the child.
Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights

This debate is about obesity rather than education.. If my proposal is accepted all parents will be keen to learn how to prevent their child from obesity. Otherwise the child might be taken away from them.So, parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights because obesity: 1) Puts their child at an increased risk of developing various health problems 2) Brings damage to emotional world of the child.
euthanasia should be legal in Canada

We shouldn't be comparing the lives of humans to animals. If it was just as simple as what you say it is, we would have already enacted it. The whole reasons some countries prohibit it is it up to abuse and can be easily abused. Another line from the Hippocratic Oath is "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect", this clearly goes against physicians, nurses and doctors oath and would prevent them from carrying out Euthanasia procedures. Euthanasia also devalues the human life and makes it seem 'okay' to end someones life, in pain or not. There is also points in when we legalise Euthanasia, people will call for more regulations for involunatary Euthanasia for much smaller or less harmful diseases and illnesses known as the "Slippery Slope". In conclusion, it shouldn't be legalised as it devalues human life, goes against God and other religions and can be used illegally and other regulations need to be enacted making things very complex and overall, a waste of money.
euthanasia should be legal in Canada

Extending the life of someone who is in incredible pain would be cruel. We put down dogs so that they don't have to be in pain so why not give the same consideration to humans? If we see injured animals we sometimes put them down so they don't have to be subject to the pain of life. Family members would be thinking about this like a pet owner thinks of their injured dog. Would they want the dog to live, of course they would. Would it be worth it seeing that person in pain 24-7, probably not. Another thing is the Euthanasia is the patients choice. If a doctor is against it then the doctor doesn't have to do it. There is a lengthy wait to make sure that the patient is ready in which they can decide to stay alive and in pain instead of passing on peacefully which include 2 letters, 15 days apart, talking to family about it, having a second opinion from another doctor and making sure that the person is mentally able to make such a choice. I would make a bet saying that people that are pro choice in matters of abortion would say that the patient should be able to decide.
euthanasia should be legal in Canada

I quote from your argument "thanasia is also done with drugs which put the patient to sleep so they can die peacefully and painlessly which does not go against the harm part" This indeeds, does go against the Oath as they are harming a patient by ending its life, regardless if they died peacefully through the use of drugs or injections, the doctor/nurse still administered it so therefore they caused harm to the patient. I quote from your argument "And since you also bring up the accidents that happen then you should also know how many accidents don't happen" Regardless of how many safe procedures have been undertaken, there is still a chance and it has happened, accidents will and do happen, we can't just ignore the chances of it as you have done. I quote from your argument "To quote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." Keeping a patient alive in such terrible pain would go against the charter." Keeping someone alive, isn't "cruel or unusual treatment" because they are keeping a patient alive, I'm afraid, people do suffer pain, but this is very wide, as patients with a number of different diseases do suffer pain but get better (in other words, not fatally ill people), that doesn't mean we need to end their suffering. So, keeping terimnally ill people alive for as long as possible, isn't "cruel", it is simply trying to extend their lives, as this is what you try to do primarily with people who have terminally ill diseases/problems.
euthanasia should be legal in Canada

Since you bring up the "Hippocratic Oath" and you also said "I will utterly reject harm" wouldn't keeping a patient alive and in pain be doing harm? Euthanasia is only used if a patient is fatally ill and there is nothing that can be done to stop the pain completely. Euthanasia is also done with drugs which put the patient to sleep so they can die peacefully and painlessly which does not go against the harm part in the "Hippocratic Oath" And since you also bring up the accidents that happen then you should also know how many accidents don't happen. A family member would rather have a dad/mom/sister/brother, put out of their misery and suffering. To quote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." Keeping a patient alive in such terrible pain would go against the charter.
euthanasia should be legal in Canada

I shall be discussing Euthanasia as a whole, not just specifically Canada. I quote from your argument "Euthanasia is one thing that we can do that will help patients. " This is a very vague statement. You aren't being clear enough on what patients you are discussing but I shall assume fatally ill ones. Although, the very concept of Euthanasia has one fatal flaw. Almost all nurses, doctors and physicians within Canada and elsewhere give a "Hippocratic Oath" which they pledge to stand by at all times to always (I quote from the Hippocratic Oath) "Also I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief". In order for Euthanasia to be carried out, a doctor needs to end a patients life, which is in direct violation of their oath. The doctors need to preserve their oath (hence why doctors don't administer lethal injections in USA or carry out death penalty procedures) so they can't do it. Therefore, a different officer or other type of medical staff would need to carry this out but as they are not experienced the exercise may be flawed or may be carried out wrong, which may cause even more suffering to the patients. Regardless, if the oath was abolished or removed, the doctors would be morally wrong to end a patients life, since they are there to maintain all patients lives. It could also be easily abused by lack of regulations and accidents with Euthanasia before has happened in the Netherlands and Switzerland where the exercise has gone majorly wrong resulting in even more distress to the patient.