BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'defense of others' too 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.
Larztheloser is a troll

In a recent comment, I was accused of opening a troll account by another debater. This debate will be to determine whether, on the balance of evidence, it is likely that I opened the troll account in question. I don't appreciate being slandered on the internet and if I am found innocent, I respectfully request that my opponent retracts his statement.The debate shall have four rounds, with 72 hours to post each round and 8000 characters to post in each.The original comment pertains to this debate: http://www.debate.org...The troll account in question is closed but refers to the con in that debate. My opponent in this debate was pro in that debate. The comment in question is also on that debate.I hope my opponent is willing to stand by his statement and look forward to a good debate.
Agnostic theism

I shall just go down the list for the questions you asked and answer them to the best of my ability.1. From where do you draw morality?I draw my Morality, as the world calls it, from my own beliefs of Right or Wrong. One of my favorite Authors Garth Nix once said in one of his novels, that there is no right or wrong, all people can do is make the best decisions they can, then to live with whatever consequences may come. So i do what i think is right, then live with said decisions.2. If you don't have morality how can you feel good about yourself?Since i have my own morality, i feel good about myself, when either i fufill my own ideas of said morality, or when i find that through my efforts someone has been changed for the better.3. How do you justify this source of morality?I judge my morality based on the general consensis of law, or more accurately the Market place of ideas. The ideas of the many outweigh that of the few in my book, so if through my studies i see that the majority believe one thing for right or wrong, then i too must live with that belief as well, as the world will hold me accountable for that as well.4. If you were to find out there was a god after death, would you not realise that you lose nothing by being theist and everything by being atheist?As to this question, i have thought about it many many times throughout my life. I believe that if at the end of this life, and i find that what i believe is wrong, or that is that a "God", or gods if the aincients were right, than i believe they should respect my belief, and the fact that i maintained who i am throughout my life. If they maintain that they gave the Human race the freedom of choice than they should allow us the free choice and not punish us for not following them blindly, or that is being skeptical of what we cannot see. If at the end of this life, i am senteced to torment for eternity, i will go willingly, for i will not give up who i am for paradise, because i do not see the difference between that and blackmail, and that goes against who i am.
Agnostic theism

Ok, So if i understand this debate correctly, i am suppose to argue for Agnostic Athiesm, which for the reletive short time i have lived on this earth i believe i am.To clarify, i do not hate religion, or any form of faith that many people in the world share. In fact i believe that the world in general is a better place because of people's beliefs. However i personally don't believe in a higher power for the simple resons of Suffering and faith.To those of you who have read the Inheritence series By Christopher Paolini, you will recognize my arguments context, but i dont' believe he is the originator of these ideas, so i don't feel guilty for taking them, however they impacted my view on faith greatly, and as per this debate, i will use them, as they easily explain said faith.Contention 1) There is suffering in the world that need not be there.If for the sake of argument there was a god that we should put our faith in at the end of our life, who in fact gave us life, freedom, love, and all the other things told of through the bible, Homer, heiroglyphs, or some variation, taht gave life to the world at large, they gave man one too many gifts. They gave us suffering and pain. which is not a gift a person, or some such entity, should be rewarded with our blind faith, trust, and in some cases love. THe point of this debate, in my eyes is not for deciding whether agnotic faith or agnostic athiesm is better. and Athiesm is better for the simple reason that a god becomes the devil when they create suffering and pain when they so obviously have the power to stop it.now i know this is a personal belief, but i don't see the point of putting my faith in something that WANTS me to suffer to demonstrate my devotion to it.
Agnostic theism

For a lot of my life I thought I was an agnostic atheist. Only today(yes literally) did I sit and think deeply and randomly (as a rational madman does) have the epiphanic realisation that I am in fact, and always have been, an agnostic theist.I shall define agnostic theism and look forward to my opponent's debate.If you simply 'accept' in round one it's a seven point forfeit. Thanks in advance.Agostic theism: The belief that although we know nothing of god(s), the best bet (if one were to gamble their life, or their famiy's) would be pro god(s) as opposed to the bleif in no superior entity/ies at all in relation to the creation of our universe.
if a healthy infant can be saved instead of aborted later in pregnancy... it should be requried

actually, i made the argument in the last post. i pointed that that even if it's for the purpsoes of saving the mtoher, healthy babies are often aborted, even though the baby could have been jsut removed from the mother, induced labor etc.... instead of abortion. obviously legislation would have to be formed to reflect all this, that we are taking into consideration the rights of healthy babies. to stress aagin, i am not saying we should stop abortions when it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, even if the baby is healthy.
if a healthy infant can be saved instead of aborted later in pregnancy... it should be requried

in cases where mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... this should be required. after six months or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother. (to be sure, this includes much abuse for 'mental health' etc) if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure, however.... healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother, when labor could be induced or teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can jsut be removed.
if a healthy infant can be saved instead of aborted later in pregnancy... it should be requried

At this point, I'd usually pose an argument. However, I want to focus on a single point my opponent made, which shows the concession by my opponent. "I never said the child should be saved if it's an either or between mother and child.... in fact I said I disagree with this notion." I'd look at what this statement says: my opponent has essentially conceded the debate. The motion was that In cases where the mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be saved instead of aborted...it should be required [to be saved]." This is a blatant concession of the debate. For this, I urge a vote CON. I also would take the spelling in R2 into account.
if a healthy infant can be saved instead of aborted later in pregnancy... it should be requried

"Let's say there are two people: the mother and the child. Either can be saved. If there is an abortion, the mother certainly lives. If there is no abortion, the mother certainly dies, whilst the child will live, due to stress of the early pregnancy, or lack of expertise, or something along those lines. Is it required to save the child in this circumstance? I would say not." I never said the child should be saved if it's an either or between mother and child.... in fact I said I disagree with this notion. "Let's take the analogy further. Let's say there is no midwife, or anyone who can help deliver the baby early. The technology in the vicinity for delivering the baby is incredibly bad. But there just so happens to be an abortion specialist nearby, and he has the equipment on him. Now, the chances are roughly calculated by a passing genius of the medical mathematical profession. He works out that it is roughly 99% chance of survival for the woman and none for the child if an abortion occurs, but if no abortion occurs, there is a 1% chance of either the mother or child surviving. However, the child can survive, and can be saved. But in 98 of 100 cases, both shall die. Or we can change the numbers to 0.001% chance for either to give a 999,998 chance in 1 million of both dying. Is it justified to risk both lives so recklessly due to this survival? Of course not. Or let's take the repeatedly occurring scenario of ages past where if the child survives, the mother will die, and vice versa. Is there any reason to value the child over the mother? Of course not: the legislation proposed is ridiculous." Con is forcing ridiculous hypotheticals in an attempt to confuse the issue that don't even have to do with what is proposed. All this boils down to is.... if it's possoible to save both the mother, and a healthy baby, we should do both. the mother shouldn't have a right to abort a healthy baby simply because her life is at risk if she carries the pregnancy.... eg, we remove the baby. " In facI would claim that foetuses, as they cannot contribute, or act, or even survive independently or rationally think or communicate, do not this label of being purely 'children' and 'people'" If the baby is healthy as i said, then they can survive independently. And if that's the case... the only thing separating them from "normal" people, is the birth canal, and a fractional matter of the mom's womb. it's meaningless and a mere technicality to say the lcation matters. Here is what Con is proposing. B has a baby at eight months. C still has a baby in her womb at eight months. B kills the baby she just had. C waits two weeks and has an abortion (her life was in danger, but both mother and child could have been saved). B is guilty of murder, and C isn't even though C's baby was further along and both were healthy babies?
9spaceking is CON in This Particular Debate

It can be different if you say it in a different way. For example if I yell CON I might be inferring sarcasm and actually mean to say "pro". Besides, that screenshot was a bug, a glitch, an error. Proof after a refreshing shows that I am actually Pro in this debate. See? I am in reality Pro, not CON. Thus, I have fulfilled my BoP to show that in fact, I am not CON in this debate, but rather Pro.
9spaceking is CON in This Particular Debate

Yelling a word in caps like "CON" does not mean that "CON" and "Con" are two different words. Nice try though. You remind me of my younger years when I trolled instead thinking about the Universe. So let's say your name is Herman Schmidt. If I said "HERMAN SCHMIDT", you would not say "I am not HERMAN SCHMIDT. I am Herman Schmidt". No, you would see it as emphasis, because that's what capital letters are: emphasis. A fat person is still a human being, their aesthetics were enlarged, that's it. "CON" is still "Con".
9spaceking is CON in This Particular Debate

This debate was supposed to be impossible for Aerogant to accept, but whatever. As can be seen from this debate I am "con", not "CON", therefore I am not CON in this debate but rather "Con". See? "Con", not "CON". Therefore I have fulfilled my BoP and shown that I ain't CON in this debate, but rather "Con" in this debate.
9spaceking is CON in This Particular Debate

The resolution is simple. "9spaceking is CON in This Particular Debate". "This particular debate" refers to this exact debate which you are currently reading. The link can be found here: http://www.debate.org... CON means "the opposing side of the resolution", while PRO means the side going for the resolution. So PRO has to prove 9spaceking is in fact CON in this debate while all I have to do is to give sufficient proof that 9spaceking isn't CON in this debate.. First round acceptance.BoP is shared.
9spaceking is CON in This Particular Debate

You forgot to switch the borders. Why is this important? Because if you were to scroll down that picture, you'll see that it's "Con, Pro...", not "Pro, Con...", which shows that you are Con, as well as "CON", as the letters are simply emphasized, not changed. Again, nice try. But I used to be a troll like you. I had troll friends and was well known for my trolling ability. I was known as the best troll in the world. Now, I'm known as an idiot.
the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment

A throw away society would not lead to less pollution or make life convenient for citizens. In a throw away society, most companies focus on creating single use products. For instance, China creates about 57 billion pairs of single-use chopsticks every year. Taiwan produces 105 000 tons of waste plastic bags. Companies, instead of improving products, create cheap products that would soon need to be replaced, leading to consumption and profits for the company. This is characteristic of a throw away society. A throw away society does not lead to innovation. Medicinal progress would be impeded because most of our drugs are derived from plants, and plant life would suffer from the backlash of a throw away society. Most scientists agree that asthma and a variety of other diseases (such as lung cancer) are caused by environmental factors. "If the new products are not used, they"d become obsolete? Wouldn"t that lead to more garbage?" This is a ridiculous claim. Consider, for instance, the "tax" that the Canadian government put on plastic bags. People now buy less plastic bags. Did this lead to more garbage? Of course not. Companies just started producing less garbage bags. "As customers, it's our responsibility to know what the next step is. We have the right to make our own decisions." This isn"t relevant to our debate, but in a throw away society, companies manipulate consumers into buying more. Below is a list of how companies do this: http://psychcentral.com... The circular economy and green investments are alternatives to the throw away economy. These systems and methods have more benefits and less drawbacks of a throw away society. Thus the "economic cost" of a throw away society is negative. Most of my opponents analysis is unsupported or simply pathos. And as Pro has not proven that the benefits outweigh the costs (BoP is on my opponent), I urge a Con vote.
the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment

First of all, wouldn't this lead to less pollution? Won't there be always more and more companies starting, trying to improve their technology to make life even better and more convenient for its citizens? Drugs would not be lessened? How's that even possible? Analysis please. Wouldn't this, on the contrary, be better for new drugs being invented? This would not lead to more diseases. Like I said, closing a door may mean opening a new one, with many possibilities. We have to admit tat we got this far in life because we took risks, as I said before. We have to always think ahead, of doing more, leaving a state of mind in which nothing's impossible quoted by Henry Ford. The lightbulb, the invention of cars, well they used a lot of fuel and weren't always successful. If we said no to that, our society wouldn't be as sophisticated and advanced as it is now. As you said, this is good for the economy. I think that because of everything we've gone through, is it a very smart choice to just maybe stop the throw-away society? After our society has gone this far? Do you think it's worthwhile to stop and leave everything behind. You keep on talking about the topic of green, green, and green. This would benefit the garbage in all those landfills. Would you not agree that if the new products are not used, they'd become obsolete? Wouldn't that just lead to more garbage? We shouldn't stop our progress right now. Look how many companies there are: Rogers, Fido, Bell. They are trying to please us. As customers, it's our responsibility to know what the next step is. We have the right to make our own decisions. In addition, I think of the model as you buy something and throw it away maybe two to three months later. As humans, I think we're smart enough not to be so prodigal and throw away something as soon as we buy it. Everything has to go through a process to actually be in market. Respect that. Everything is detrimental, including us. For these reasons, this has to pass.
the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment

Since my opponent has neglected to provide the definition of a throwaway society, I will do so. A throwaway society is characterized by single-use products, which are immediately thrown away as waste. It is the "take, make, dispose" model. Obviously consumption is necessary for the economy, but overconsumption is not. I will be arguing that overconsumption is ultimately harmful for our society. First of all, I would like to establish that a throwaway society is not sustainable. A multitude of studies have shown that in New York City, between 1905 and 2005, there was a tenfold rise in packaging and old products. A world which bases its economy on a throwaway society will have consequences of a far greater magnitude than the aftereffects of the industrial revolution. Agriculture will suffer. There will be food shortages. Diseases such as asthma will be rampant. Potential drugs that could have been derived will be lost. The list goes on. http://www.sehn.org... One of the most important arguments Pro will probably bring up is that a throwaway society will be good for the economy. While this may be true, there are more sustainable methods to boost production while maintaining the balance between humans and nature. Consider the circular economy, which maximizes the sustainable use and value of resources. According to a report by the British government, there are potentially billions of pounds of benefits for businesses across the economy to be more resource efficient. http://www.bbc.com... http://www.wrap.org.uk... Some will argue that a throwaway economy is needed to pull the economy out of a tailspin. But as Joseph Stieglitz pointed out in his book Freefall, long term "green" investments could help, as well as having a greater money multiplier effect than pure consumption. Constructing high speed railways is such a method.
the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment

As you know, the resolution is as follows: the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment. We model this resolution as follows: the scope would be for the people using the devices and the companies. Our goal is to have further development in society and make sure there"s less pollution, and no chaos. We have three constructive arguments to show why this resolution is true and should pass. Mr. Speaker, our first point is that new devices and uses of technology are still growing. Why does this matter? On the textbook, it said that new mobile phones appear on the market every few months. If people don"t throw away their old technologies and buy the new ones, we would have to throw the new ones out, making them obsolete. Then, more pollution would be formed because more and more devices are being thrown, leading to landfills and that would give other resources needed to be thrown away, no space. This would also be bad for society because maki
Capitalism is better than Socialism

Round One is acceptance. Round Two is opening arguments (NO REBUTTALS) Round Three is for rebutting (NO NEW ARGUMENTS) BOP is on the side of Pro, pro needs to provide good arguments that capitalism is better than socialism, if Pro manages to provide an argument that Con is unable to refute, Pro provided better arguments. By accepting this debate you will acknowledge socialism and capitalism as: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." and "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." respectively, both stated by dictionary.com. Any violation of this rules will result in immediate loss. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...