BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Utilitarianism is inherently unjust

Good luck to who ever accepts this debate: I am arguing that Utilitarianism is inherently unjust. The following definitions for this round are: Utilitarianism: a form of consequentialism that claims the action that yields the most happiness to the most people is the ethical action. Unjust: not giving people what they are due. My argument is this: 1. People are due worth 2. Utilitarianism disregards human worth 3. Utilitarianism is unjust 1. People are due worth Philosopher Immanuel Kant explains why humans have inherent worth in his book "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals". Humans have the capacity of rational thought and free will. Both free will and rational thought are needed to adhere to moral laws. But why? A moral law must be universal (it's a law) and carry with it a sense of obligation (again, it's a law). Kant says the only way to determine if something is universal (or a moral law), ration thought must be used. In other words, rational thought is a prerequisite to establishing universality. ***Anyone who has taken high school level geometry knows that the three angles of a triangle equal 180 when added together. But how? If you had a triangle with the side lengths of 3, 4, and 5 and the angles of 30, 60, 90, you could add up the angles and get 180. But did you prove that all triangles have angles that equal 180? No, you only proved that a triangle with the sides 3, 4, 5 and angles 30, 60, 90 will have a sum of 180 for the angles. You would have to test every single possible scenario for triangle lengths and angles to prove, universally, the math theorem that we all accept as fact. This is impossible. The only way to prove that the angles of triangle will equal 180 is logic and rational thought. Therefore rational thought is a prerequisite to universality.*** Also, as humans, we have the mental free will to follow moral obligations. Kant argues that forcing someone to follow a duty lessens the worth of the law. If the law requires coercion to be followed, does it really have a sense of obligation with it? No. Therefore, moral laws require rational and free agents, and humans are needed for moral laws. From this, we can conclude that humans have paramount worth in regards to morals. 2. Utilitarianism disregards human worth Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, the belief that ends can justify the means. Kant argues that, since humanness has paramount worth, it should never be the means to achieve another end, since no end can have more value than humanness. Under utilitarianism, happiness to the most people is the ultimate end. There is no protection of, or value placed on, humanness. The worth of humanity is immediately taken away when not held as the ultimate end. 3. Utilitarianism is inherently unjust. Justice involves giving people what they are due. As explained, humans are due paramount worth. Something is unjust if it does not provide worth to humanity. Utilitarianism does not provide paramount worth to humanity. Therefore, utilitarianism violates justice. Thank you, and good luck!
Utilitarianism is inherently unjust

I'm going to post a quote here from a web page based on the words of James Mill. "Mill discusses our motivations to abide by the utilitarian standard of morality. Man is not commonly motivated to specific acts such as to kill or steal, instead, we are motivated to promote general happiness. Mill argues that there are two classes of motivations for promoting general happiness. First, there are external motivations arising from our hope of pleasing and fear of displeasing God and other humans. More importantly, there is a motivation internal to the agent, which is the feeling of duty. For Mill, an this feeling of duty consists of an amalgamation of different feelings developed over time, such as sympathy, religious feelings, childhood recollections, and self-worth. The binding force of our sense of duty is the experience of pain or remorse when one acts against these feelings by not promoting general happiness. Mill argues that duty is subjective and develops with experience. However, man has an instinctive feeling of unity, which guides the development of duty toward general happiness. " source: http://www.victorianweb.org... Now instead of going with Mill's proof for the principle of utility, I'm going to show prof of this with resent scientific discovery. Scientific facts support this claim. For the most part moralists have not paid much attention to the findings of science. But the resent use of modern neuro-imaging of the human brain reveals that acting virtuous actually feels good. "Moral" Behavior sends reward-related brain systems into a pleasurable state even more so than the prospect of self-interested gain. The brain's activity in the process can be detected or illuminated using transcranial magnetic stimulation and MRI technologies. As humans struggle to resist doing what is learned to be bad and immoral that are inherent in self view, that regions of the brain fire 'squelch' to interfere with chemically reacted impulses. This can support that the feeling of duty toward general happiness for all is internal for all of us. source: http://www.neuroquantology.com...
Utilitarianism is inherently unjust

Your main argument is that laws are based on utilitarianism and laws are needed for society. First, I would argue that laws are not always based on what yields the most benefit, but what is morally right. For example, it would benefit the majority of America if we made it legal to steal from the top 2% of America. 98% of Americans would benefit. However, we do not consider it a moral action, so it is illegal. Also, there is a distinction between justice (as in pertaining to law) and justice (as in giving each their due). The legal judicial system does not always give people what they are due. And third, judicial laws are constantly changing, so they cannot be used as a criterion for moral actions. Now in response to your critiques of my arguments: 1. Basic laws are written to preserve safety, yes. But this does not mean that utilitarianism is the backbone of moral laws, or that utilitarianism is just. 2. A law for the greatest good disregards the small group. Slave laws followed Utilitarian logic. Even though a portion of the population was treated as less than human, the majority of the population benefited. Laws against murder are laws because of human worth, not because of utiliarianism. Another utilitarian action would be genocide of people without a job. It would mean less money spent on welfare and unemployment benefits. The government would have more money to give to the remaining 90% or so of Americans who have jobs. 3. Utilitarianism is always unjust (not giving people their due) because it holds that ends justify means. At its base, it accepts that a person's inherent worth can be sacrificed for the benefit of others. Whether the action is committed or not, the acceptance that human worth is not always the ultimate end denies people what they are due. Therefore, it is unjust.
5 questions I will answer about the Christian God

Ok I'll ask the 5 questions and I assume I will just refute your answers in the last two rounds to win the debate? Or do i just prove why the ideology behind it is false? 1. Is their any credible record from an eye-witness of 0 B.C. that can be used to prove that their was a Jesus Christ and that he passed down the New Testament (from the angel Gabriel I think). 2. Is their any actually existing definitive proof today of the manifestation or the actual existence of god? 3. What proof is their that Christianity wasn't just invented by a highly intellectual person who people highly respected? (Imagine one of those doomsday preachers on the street who claim to know what's right and wrong; what's to say that the son of god wasn't one of these individuals but at a much more highly intellectual and respected level). 4. At the instance that both Islam acknowledge Christ as a prophet, and the fact that their was already a pre-existing Testament, that of Judaism; what's to say that their individual god is not the correct one and that the Christian god is false? 5. In the modern world, everybody is always moving and having to try to find a way to keep their family/individual stable and economically sufficient while also trying to fit in the typical societal "norm"; why is it that somebody trying to do this should devote time in prayer, money in donation, and thus put themselves at a disadvantage to those people who are able to avoid doing this by not believing in religion at all? I am looking forward to seeing what will happen in the next round. I'd like to ask my opponent to please clarify either the point or meaning behind this debate.
Your future self is a clone of you.

My future self and a clone of me are different, as clones are exactly the same as what they are the clone of, but my future self is more experienced then I am, as well as being older, and as cloning is majorly speculation (no human has ever been cloned, so we do not know if thoughts are shared) so if my future self is different me, but a clone is the same as me, I will agree that a clone is the same as me but not me in the future.
Your future self is a clone of you.

There is nothing that distinguishes a clone of you from your future self. I do not share my future experiences with my future self the same way a clone would. (ie: if i hurt my future self I do not feel it now. This works in reverse presuming that the damage is repaired immediately) The cells of my future self may be completely different in the same way a clone is. One might say that I will experience my future self's experiences. How would you know if your future self isnt just a copy that thinks its you?
Lowering drinking age

With your statement in mind, that the maturity level is not fully reached, shouldn't the driving age, as well as military age be raised as well? Because of the illegal aspect to drinking under 21, teenagers, being who they are, do everything that is against the taboo, AKA: rebel. In countries all over the world such as Canada, England, Germany, Ireland, Russia, Italy,... you name it, the drinking age is between 15 and 19 years old (http://www.icap.org...). Unless there is something fundamentally different about American teenagers, the drinking age should be dropped. Now, people always say "just because another country is doing it, doesn't mean we should". Now, while I agree with that somewhat, the laws of those countries have been in effect for some time, and their crime rate involving alcohol is lower than that of the United States (http://www.nhtsa.gov...).
Majority of Higher Education Institutes indoctrinate students with Anti-Theistic Beliefs

Firstly thanks to my opponent for an entertaining debate. I have enjoyed it immensely. Its always fun to debate topics that are not run of the mill. Regarding theology versus divinity, that is a distinction that can be made. Yet the fact that the study of various religious ideas exists (i.e. theology and or divinity) goes a long way to proving this debates proposition faulty. Also, multiple of the departments listed above also have a branch that is used by persons entering the faith. Regardless, whether the students are entering these courses to become a priest/preacher/wiccan priest? etc. or not is not relevant to the topic. What is relevant is that these departments exist. These departments would not exist if the higher education institutes wanted to indoctrinate students in anti-theistic ideology. Regarding the article cited in the previous round, if anything it shows that universities are not anti-theistic.(1) It shows that some universities are questioning whether to separate their theology from their religious studies into two separate departments. This does not mean universities want to get rid of religious studies. So we can conclude that firstly, universities want to promote religious studies by creating their own department. Secondly, this article is saying that religious studies exist in theology departments which is contrary to your previous description of theology courses. In this debate I believe I have sufficiently shown the premise to be flawed. In fact my opponent has also shown the premise to be flawed. Confidently, I now hand the debate over to the voters. (1) http://www.iowastatedaily.com...
Majority of Higher Education Institutes indoctrinate students with Anti-Theistic Beliefs

My opponent begins by addressing if majority has been adequately addressed. I think his first flaw is making Theology equal divinity study. Theology is the philosophical study of God and how it relates to humans. One can expect a theology course to be more exclusive in it's teachings if it were in part to make a career in religious circles. But theology can also be a descriptive course of study in which a variety of religions across the world are looked at and none are said to be right or wrong. Further more the religious study is seen as a humanities study and attempt to explain in social context the human desire or need for a god. By no mean states that a God exists. The difference could be the studying scripture to be part of a church, or studying churches to understand mankind's fascination with gods and god. Some even advocating making the distinction clearer and banning the former from public universities. [1]So a theology course is not the same as advocating a theistic view of reality. Nor is it the same as a divinity study found in course work for religious career paths. My next contention with this line of reasoning is just because a majority of schools over, let us assume as my opponent has, a theistic advocating theology course, does not mean the majority of the campus student body is exposed to that teaching. Many of the schools offer an Art course. To state that this the majority of universities instill an art appreciation into students would be a gross exaggeration. I say we should only count the courses that are required my schools. Science course work and lab work are all required, writing, math, and in the field of humanities a student could elect language. So Science classes are required by every student. But theology is not. When I brought up evolution it was not an attack on the validity of evolution. It was clearly to point out that the theories and explanations of the world with live in are all M. A. N. S. type of explanations. It should be noted that evolution s a description of life's changing process and is not a theory about it's origins. And yet the abiotic origins of life are taught along side evolution, despite other equally explanatory theories being present. I feel I have to show that there is a belief system, mutual supportive -isms, that are indoctrinated into the majority of students in the majority of universities. This is not a science against religion debate. It is to show that the core of the academic doctrine is a world that presupposes the absence of any god. So much so that core ideologies such as materialism and naturalism have been described as poor explanations for the reality we live in. But they are the only ideologies that make a god impossible. And that is why they have to be taught from top to bottom in higher education centers. Has focused mostly on the term majority. As I said I think a fair approach would be the majority of universities instill in the majority of their students this doctrine of Materialism, Atheism, Naturalism, Secularism. [1] . http://www.iowastatedaily.com...
Majority of Higher Education Institutes indoctrinate students with Anti-Theistic Beliefs

Higher Education = education beyond high school, especially at a college or university.Indoctrination = to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. Belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. Belief is an acceptance of a statement to be true. "God does not exist" is one example of a statement accepted as being true.Most Colleges and Universities have a ruling body that accept this statement as true. These places of "higher" learning have curriculum to indoctrinate students into Anti-Theistic belief system.First round for acceptance."The only thing to interfere with my learning, is my education" - Einstien
Should Middle School start at 8 or 9 instead of 7

.. According to Pro, school should start late because students would be more aware. Why you should vote Con. .. As I stated earlier, schools should start at 7:00am instead of 8:00 or 9:00am because that lost time must be added on somewhere else. The only logical answer to that would be to add it on at the end of the school day making school stay later into the day. This gives students less time to complete their homework and less time to enjoy themselves before having to sleep again. There would be no sleep deprivation issue if schools started at 7:00am because students can still get the recommended 9+ hours of sleep if they would just go to bed at 8:30 or 9:00pm. Getting the recommended amount of sleep would keep kids alert at the beginning and throughout the school day. And finally, students would still have enough time to get ready in the morning if school started at 7:00am. Students can get up at 6:00am and still have a good half hour-forty five minuets to get ready for the day ahead without being late or waking up at an ungodly time. Thank you. :)
Should Middle School start at 8 or 9 instead of 7

Kids can get eight and even the recommended 9 hours of sleep if they go to bed at a decent time. If they would log out of Facebook or turn off their video games and head to bed at 8:30 or 9:00p.m. then they can wake up at 6:00a.m. and will get 9+ hours of sleep. This is the required minimum amount of sleep for middle school students and would prevent them from passing out in the middle of class. They will also have at least a half hour to get ready for school. It may not be what the kids would prefer but it is doable. Also, if school starts later, then the school would have to leave later. It is required by law that school be at least 7 hours a day. This includes lunch and breaks in between classes. If school were to start at 8 or 9 in the morning, then the school would have to tack on that one or two hours to the other end of the day and school would get out at 3 or 4 in the afternoon, giving students less time to complete assignments and enjoy themselves.
Should Middle School start at 8 or 9 instead of 7

Thank you for instigating this debate, I believe that students should start at 7:00 A.M. because it is early enough for kids to get the minimum amount of sleep, school would end early enough for them to have time to do their homework, and some spare time to do whatever they please. Also, students have enough time to get ready for school without having to wake up at ungodly times.
Neither of us will break a rule.

>>-O----> ----1---- 1 / / 1. PRO must use the words "must" or CON doesn't have to follow them as it states what "shall" happen in the future and not what "must" happen in order for CON to break a rule 2. PRO must visit http://www.asciiworld.com... sorry if this site is no longer up, its pretty old 3. PRO should (not must this time) admit that chuck norris (who was at my school on monday!!!!) is the bomb (not in the literal sense)
Neither of us will break a rule.

*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* Con's first rule has violated my first rule by imposing restriction on Pro's use of the English Language and mandating that Pro use this "lamer" speech. Con's second rule has violated my first rule by imposing a format on Pro's use of whatever language he is supposed to use. This also violates Pro's third rule regarding behavior. Since it is impossible to capitalize some of the text in this "lamer" speech, Con's first and second rules are impossible to follow because they cannot be done. Thus, Con has violated foundational rule 7 regarding logical contradictions. Furthermore, Con did not make a statement in Leetspeak extolling the virtues of Pro's debating methods, and is thus in violation of Pro's second rule. Con has violated all three of Pro's rules and therefore lost the debate in the first round. Con's third rule concerning the validity of Pro's future rules may run afoul of foundational rule 9 regarding negation of other rules. However, since Pro's rules have not been enumerated yet, there is some ambiguity on this point that I shall leave up to the voters. And since this has not been determined, I'll simply make three nonsense rules that may or may not actually be null and void. Weigh in, readers. A reminder - Pro is not bound by Con's first two rules, as they are not valid rules. *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* 1. Con shall proceed to render a basic ASCII stick figure character in the debate field. 2. Con shall expand is leetspeak statement to degrade his abysmal use of rule-making. 3. Con shall refer to Pro as "JustCallMeTarzan" from now on with due deference, pomp, and procedure befitting his status as the proposed winner of this debate.
Neither of us will break a rule.

1. PR0 mu57 74|k 1n |4m3r 5p33ch wh1ch 15 v3ry 51m1|4r 70 |337 74|k 2. PR0 mu57 ch4ng3 3v3ry 07h3r unc4p174|1z3d |3773r. 3. 4ny ru|3 0f PR05 m4d3 4f73r 7h15 ru|3 15 nu|| 4nd \/01d.
Neither of us will break a rule.

Acceptance of this debate indicates concurrence with and acceptance of the foundational rules. Foundational Rules: 1. Rules created govern all rules from then on. 2. Both players shall have the ability to post rules in English on their turn. 3. Violation of a rule is grounds for loss of this debate. 4. Discussion of a rule's nullity or application shall be placed in between lines alternating stars (*) and equal signs (=) as thus: *=*=*=*=*=*=* etc... Discussion text is these boundaries shall not be under the purview of any rules. 5. Each player shall make three and only three rules per round. 6. Rules cannot be made to declare victory or defeat of a debater. Example - rules such as "Con must accept defeat" are invalid. 7. Rules may not introduce logical contradictions. Example - rules like "Con must assert that a bachelor is married" are invalid. 8. Rules may not have an indeterminate outcome. Example - rules like "Con must eat worms each round" are invalid. 9. Rules may not negate other rules. Example - rules like "Foundational Rule 9 is hereby repealed" are invalid. 10. Debaters shall follow all rules. END FOUNDATIONAL RULES; BEGIN ROUND 1 RULES: 1. Con shall not make rules governing Pro's use of the English, or any other language, including, but not limited to: spelling, grammar, content, and word choice. 2. Con shall have both the ability and requirement to make a statement in 13375|o3@|< (leetspeak) extolling the virtues of Pro's debating methods. 3. Con shall not make rules imposing any requirements of statement, creed, language, or behavior upon Pro.