BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is overall a good thing.

//Refutations\The main point my opponent is arguing here is that morality is necessary for someone to act in a manner that is "right" or "wrong" and because "right" actions are good and thus it means morality is good but this ignores a very fundamental idea, there is no objectivity in "right" and "wrong". There is no action that is always deemed as "right" or "wrong" and thus the problem arises of conflicting morals. What happens when one person sees the action they do as being morally good while the other sees it as bad? This will be explored further in the next section. //Arguments\As I previously stated there is no objectivity in "right" or "wrong" and therefore the problem of what happens when someone does something they seem as morally good whist someone else sees it as bad. What happens is violence ensues. Take for example Timothy McVeigh. Timothy was the person who committed the Oklahoma City Bombings on April 19th. He committed this act of terrorism as a way to get revenge on the USFG for the Waco incident. He saw the actions of the USFG as immoral or bad while the government themselves saw their actions as just. He attacked because he perceived one action as being bad while another thought it was good thus giving us a prime example of what I previously stated about there being no objectivity in "right" or "wrong". But let us elaborate. Timothy was eventually arrested because the government viewed his actions as bad while he viewed them as just thus providing yet another example. So what we have here is a prime example of why morality is bad. Because there is no objective morality there will always be people who deem X action as being bad while others deem it as being good and that brings about the possibility for violence to be committed. This is not to say we should give up on acts of kindness and so forth but that the idea of our actions being judged on a moral scale is bad. I would also like to propose an alternate cause to humans being kind or "good". An alternate cause to human kindness would be through an evolutionary pathway. An individual in a civilization will first do what is in his/her best interest but next they will do what they can to preserve their society and that paves the way to "good" actions because the actions that our society would deem as "bad" would be ones that damage the civilization thus undermining the evolutionary pathway so the individual would commit actions we deem as "good". So here we have a very probable alternate cause to "good" acts thus showing that morality is not necessarily needed for "good" actions. //Overview\Because there is no objective morality X action can be deemed as good by one person and as bad by another thus leading to conflict which is detrimental to a society thus showing that morality is inherently bad for a society. Also, there is a very probable alternate cause to "good" actions thus eliminating Pro's argument. I await his responses.
Morality is overall a good thing.

I affirm "Morality is overall a good thing." I accept my opponent's definitions of morality, morals, and bad. Morals are necessary to making good choices, because, according to our definition of "morals", understanding the difference between right and wrong helps people in the making of their choices, and decision making is essential part of our brain that we are born with. According to the Infant Cognition Centre at Yale University, infants from six months old have a sense of right and wrong that allows them to make their daily choices, and that these morals are necessary for making their choices. Good decisions improve the overall quality of life, since they allow people to use judgement in deciding what is better for themselves. Therefore, since morality is a system of morals, morals are necessary to making good decisions, and good decisions improve the overall quality of life, morality improves the quality of life and therefore does not cause detriment and thus is a good thing.
Morality is overall a good thing.

As I Con I will be arguing that morality is over all a bad construct. Rules: 1: Please post all sources in the comments section 2: Please use good conduct Definitions: Morality-"A doctrine or system of morals"[1] Morals- "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"[2] Bad-"causing detriment"[my own interpretation] As I would set the burden of Proof on the affirmative I will await Pro's arguments. Thanks in advance to anyone who accepts. ~~Peter
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

I'm confused as to the rules and/or what my opponent meant to do (see: comment section). However I am sure we can figure this out by restructuring the debate somehow. I'll allow him to make his opening arguments in R2 and we can go from there. If he wants to start this debate over, he can forfeit this one and challenge me to a new one. It's up to him. Good luck!
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

1. Round one Affirmative Constructive 2. Round one Negative CX(cross examination) Just ask questions 3.Round 2 Affirmative responds to CX questions 4. Round 2 Negative Constructive 5.Round 3 Affirmative Rebuttal 6.Round 3 Negative rebuttal 7.Round 4 Affirmative second rebuttal 8.Round 4 Neg Final Focus
morality=survival truth

Con.R2.1 - What ?I honestly don't understand what you wrote. It is incredibly difficult to read.Please rephrase in a way that explains how "Survivability dictates Morality" ... Or ... whatever argument you might be making.Again - I honestly don't know how to interpret your comments.Con.R2.2 - Is Suicide Moral or Immoral? A-Moral?In Re. Pro.R2 - the opposite of survival is suicide.. religion is suicide ... so your conclusion is that suicide contributes value to human lifeAlthough I made no arguments regarding suicide - you seem pretty emphatic about the topic ... is this the actual issue you are trying to address?Is it immoral for a person to end their own suffering? Do they have this right?Or, is it immoral for a person to ignore the fact that others suffer like them ... and then choose to ignore the suffering of others, (through suicide, etc) ... Con.R2.3 - Again - Whose View Point Matters - when Considering Survival?Are actions taken to ensure survival of self moral?Are actions taken to ensure survival of others moral?Con.R2.4 - The Definition of Morality ?No matter how you spin any of this ... If you grossly misrepresent "morality" as a "binary equation" - you can come up with no meaningful answer.Morality adds "meaning" to human life, (virtue?) -> because that is the way we defined the word. We have another word that lacks the "substance" -> "Natural Law"."Natural Law = Survival Truth" ... is not at all the same as "Morality = Survival Truth". "Natural Law" is not "Morality" (An entirely different debate perhaps).Con.R2.5 - Apologies I am new to the site, and should have picked up on a few hints that this discussion would not be fruitful.But - just in case the tone changes - I will follow up ... otherwise, we should reset this, and let someone else tackle it.
morality=survival truth

the opposite of survival is suicide.. morality goes to some ones intentions, diseases grow like plants, plants cant just choose to de-evolve back to seed stage becuase it dosnt like life.. dont get caught up in the are stones moral thing, no and you wouldnt blame them for falling on your head i cant speak for an artificial intelligence, cant it exist without humans? are humans not good for an artificial intelligence to keep around. if the supervirus existence is threatened by humanity and it cant survive on its own whats the point of attack? if the artificial intelligence can exist on its own perhaps it will try to end the threat to its existence, do you blame it? and if thats the case wouldnt humans be immoral? if a gigantic powerfull highly advanced friendly warrior robot crash lands on earth without possibility of escape, that if threatened or in the face of violence will protect anyone and itself, does it make sense to attack it? religion is suicide is a blind man guilty of a crime if passing by "the end of a rainbow" on the way home to his starving family? like an animal is not necessarily intelligent enough to know what its doing is wrong, is a bacteria criminally guilty of surviving? so your conclusion is that suicide contributes value to human life
morality=survival truth

Con.R1.1 - Restatement of Challenge, (from Comments) :In Re. Pro.Comment : "im saying survival truth is morality"As I understand, Pro will argue that Morality can be derived in view of survival. ... just some questions, (as I have no idea where Pro is going with this) :Con.R1.2 - Does "Survival" Even have a "Moral Value"?It is not generally accepted that "Drinking Water", or "Eating Bread" - have a "Moral Value". Moral Valuations are heavily dependent on "context".In the same way, does "Survival" have a "Moral Value" - regardless of "context"? Does a super-virus, or Artificial Intelligence, become moral - causing humanity to perish - to survive? (Regardless of all other facts?)Con.R1.3 - Is Pro redefining "Morality" - OR - is Pro maintaining the current understanting, but suggesting that "computation of what is moral is possible by considering survival factors".Con.R1.4 - Is "Survival Morality" - "Virtuous"?Morality (from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition) :n. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.n. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.n. Virtuous conduct.Con.R1.5 - Can Morality be both Eqanimity based AND Survival Based?Many definitions of morality rely on equanimity as a guiding principle to morality. But would survival-based morality conflict with this principle?Con.R1.6 - Are "Surivival Morality" and "Justice" Compatible? Or, Mutually Exclusive?Does a grieved/wronged person have a basis for relief - or are they ultimately subject to "Survival Morality"? Con.R1.7 - Is Human Morality Distinct from Animal Morality? A.I.?Often, animal behavior is considered "amoral" - without a moral valuation - but are they considered moral under this definition?What about self-less acts for the survival of something else? What if someone kills another, to protect the survival of another, (even to protect the planet)?Con.R1.8 - Is "Suvival Morality" Actually Meaningful?If "Survival Morality" reduces human life to a "mere reducible quantity" - then I suggest that "Survival Morality" is internally contradicting, actually impairing survival :1. All Human Life has value.2. Morality is a value that enriches human life.3. Morality, seen in view of survival, enriches human life - probably - at the expense of other human life.4. So, Some Human life has more value than others.5. So, Morality is a value that enriches some of that human life.6. So, Morality, seen in view of their survival, enriches some of their lives, at the expense of even more.2 ! 7. Therefore, Cummatively, Morality's greatest potential is to diminish human life, for the sake of enriching a smaller minority. 8. ... etc, etc.There does not seem to be "equanimity" in this observation - let alone a way that "morality" contributes an actual, valued, meaning to human life.
The kalam cosmological argument is sound

I did cite it was your opening statement. However there is still one round left so if you could provide a rebuttal and i could provide a rebuttal we could still have a fruitful debate. However, if you would like to debate this again i would not use yours but i will use mine. I just wanted to show everyone you are roleplaying. However, as i said before there is still one round left which we could utilize so please provide a rebuttal and i will provide my rebuttal
Abortion is wrong, even in medical reasons

I would like to define some key terms: Kill: to deprive of life in any manner. Innocent: free from moral wrong; without sin; pure. Both definitions from dictionary. com Now, I will provide an example. There are two people each in need of an organ that belongs to the other. One man needs a heart, while the other needs two kidneys. One option would be to kill the man with the heart to save the man with the kidneys. Or the opposite, kill the man with the two kidneys to save the man with the heart. Or possible switch the organs in the bodies, which would really accomplish nothing. But the last way would be to leave it alone, knowing that the end does not justify the means. I will argue that the last way is the only moral way. "If the mother's health is endangered by the presence of the child, then leaving the child in the mother would lead to two deaths. " Just for clearfication, usually the deaths occur in labor. So it would be either the mother who dies during child birth, or it would be the fetus who dies by an abortion, to prevent the death of the mother. But again, usually both do not die. So because of this is will argue both the case in which one dies and the case in which both die. For the case in which it is either the mother or the child who dies, but not both, this is my arguement. Who can determine which life in more important, which one should be saved? In seeing that you are Christian I will bring God into this debate. Our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn't issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as "playing God. " Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that's His prerogative. So in order to determine which life to take, we would have to be an all knowing God. Now for the argument in which it is either both die, or the fetus. A qoute would be good. From your debate on how abortion is morally wrong: "Abortion is a deprivation of a human's rights. To deny somebody the right to life is to deny them liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. It is a massive civil rights violation: Deny humans the right of humanity. " So although the mother may die, killing the fetus would be unethical. It would be a deprivation the fetus of human rights. Even is both the fetus and the mother would die it would not be at the hand of man, but because it is God's prerogative. However, killing the fetus to save the mother would be a death at man's hand. "My aborting the baby we let it go in a painless way and let the mother continue living her life. " The fetus would feel great pain, just like any other living thing.
Abortion is wrong, even in medical reasons

I will attack my opponent's only argument: "it is wrong to kill innocent life to save another." This is an overly simplistic statement. This isn't always the case. If the mother's health is endangered by the presence of the child, then leaving the child in the mother would lead to two deaths. First, the mother would die because her body couldn't handle the baby, secondly the baby would die because a fetus needs a mother to survive. My aborting the baby we let it go in a painless way and let the mother continue living her life. Thank you.
environment not birth makes you who you are

I disagree. While having advantages such as a loving family, money, exceptional schooling, etc. certainly gives one a head start, it doesn't make a person who they are. There is no shortage of examples I can give of people who didn't have the best upbringing, didn't have the best environment, didn't have any advantage at all, yet turned into some of our greatest leaders and heroes. Likewise there is no shortage of examples I can give who had all of the advantages and the best of everything growing up who are now rotting in prison, dead, or just dreadful human beings. John Hinkley Jr., for instance, grew up in a loving family with every advantage material wealth could provide. He had siblings who grew up to be among the elites of society. John grew up to shoot a President. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both became President of the United States, their brothers grew up to be substance abusing hangers on. Same families, same environment, very different results. At birth you are who you are. If that means you are more/less intelligent than your family, or more/less gifted in one way or another, then that's who you are. How you are raised won't necessarily influence that. Environment can certainly provide an advantage, but it does not make you who you are.
Determinism is compatible with free will

Thank you for the response. ---------------------------------------- I will start with my opponent's case First you agree with me. Followed immediately by disagreeing with me on the same thing. You move onto say the existence of God is the cause of everything. Thus, determinism is false or non-existent. We are debating philosophical ideas. This debate is assuming the ideas are true. It does not matter if it can be proved false. If it is absolutely false, then you must find a way to make it true, or the entire debate is pointless. Also, the words of one man do not determine the existence of God or anything like that. And so, you're entire argument of sorts has no affect to the topic at hand. Say the circumstances were as you said, with such an impregnable building, it would be necessary or a tleast unbelievably useful to be able to get close. In such a case, the situation could have been avoided if Bob and Fred were not close friends or friends at all. Bob does have two choices. Bob makes the choice, hence he is responsible. If you wonder why, here is why: Whatever made Bob a mercenary, whatever happens in Bob's life determines how he acts and responds. His decision making is determined by the events in his life. But the choice still exists. He makes a choice, though it may already be determined, he is conscious of making the decision to kill or not kill Fred. So he would be morally responsible for killing Fred if he chose to do so. This is determinism, at the same time it is free will. He is conscious of making a decision (free will). His decision-making is determined by the events in his life. As it is both, determinism is compatible with free will. You agreed with me in your last sentence of the paragraph "Yes, here you are correct (this is not the agreeing I mean)...he would be morally responsible." In the case that that was a fluke, I will respond as if it (the fluke) did not occur. For determinism to exist, there must be a beginning. Free will provides a beginning. Nowhere in the definition of determinism I provided does it say "directly determined." Things may be determined indirectly. Which is how this choice goes. The events in Bob's life that determine his decision-making for the specific time of the decision being made does not directly determine the choice. To Bob, his decision is free will; it may have been determined indirectly by the past events, but to Bob, it is free will. Bob is still morally responsible for killing Fred if he chooses to kill Fred. I just did that (see above), and oddly enough, I got a different result (omg!!!!!!!!). ----------------------------------------- Now, to conclude. My case suggested 2 ways in which determinism and free will are compatible. My opponent's case suggested various reasons for why those 2 ways are wrong. I disproved every one of those various reasons. My case still stands. ********************N.B. As you can clearly see I won, I strongly urge you vote PRO.********************
Determinism is compatible with free will

Thank you Mells. There must exist a bond between determinism and free will. Determinism cannot have a beginning as it says everything is caused as a direct result of a chain of prior occurrences. Time was created by humans to put events in sequence. Time is not forever as time is actually nothing. Seeing as determinism is needs a beginning but cannot have a beginning, determinism cannot exist forever. But, once there is a beginning, it can be argued that determinism exists. The beginning, if not by determinism, is up to free will. Free will and determinism are then compatible. I await response from my opponent.
Consciousness is an illusion

"Consciousness is an illusion"? Consciousness is consciousness and illusion is illusion. Consciousness enables the physical generation of illusion and all thought processes. Are you actually proposing that all our conscious thoughts are illusory? I would suggest that consciousness is a basic, physiological, and functional capability and an illusion is a derived thought, based on acquired information. Who or what has the authority to determine the accuracy and validity of thoughts? With regard to the clone question: A clone would be an exact physical copy of oneself. This physicality would include all prenatally encoded information, information required to necessitate human functionality. Sub-conscious information if you like. Postnatal conditioning or conscious programming through perception is what would define us and our clones as separate individuals. Sub-conscious or conscious, at what level do we become self aware? Perception is a derived or evolved capability, which enhances consciousness. Similarly, memory and the ability to manipulate information enhances functionality. Do single celled organisms have these capabilities? We certainly know that bacteria can modify in response to antibiotics, suggesting a certain level of perception and an ability to manipulate, which begs the question: Is this an individual decision or response or a collective decision or response? I would suggest that whether or not A.I. devices are or will be able to perceive is wholly dependant on ourselves, as it is us who will facilitate such a capability. I personally believe that sentient Intelligent devices are an evolutionary inevitability. So if you think that "consciousness is an illusion". Then what do you think the reality of everything is?
Consciousness is an illusion

If you were to make an exact clone of yourself then would you be conscious in two different places at once? Probably not. The ability to make decisions is what facilitates this illusion; that we are self-aware when in actuality we are restricted by our genes which is the "code" to make us act in a specific way. Being self-aware of one's own existence doesn't preclude self-learning AI from being "conscious". What is consciousness? Consciousness is "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings." If self-learning AI can for example learn how to play a game better through trial and error then what stops humans from perceiving self-learning AI as sentient? It's really difficult to say since self-learning AI operates in a very similar way to bacteria multiplying in inverse order. It's impossible to know how a single-celled organism let alone an AI perceives the world.
Neversoft Ruined Guitar Hero

Well, I play on hard, and one of my friends plays on expert and can't beat raining blood (he's the typical, aced guitar hero 2 minus Jordan). But I've played most of the songs on expert, and find them still pretty easy. It's not the solo on raining blood that messes me up, it's the Moshing guitar breaks. But alas, I digress. My point being is that, it's not right that I can pretty much pass all but four songs on expert (on the normal tiers), but can't beat the last tier on hard. Also, regarding three, Neversoft pretty much just made it like GH 2.1, because they didn't add really any gamebreaking features, plus, they actually made the hit windows bigger, and added a horrendous battle mode. I doubt that Guitar Hero goes anywhere under Neversofts control, while Harmonix is already revolutionizing with Rock Band. Even with the full guitar experience, on web sites like scorehero, they talk about the expert sites not being accurate.