BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Categorical Imperatives do not exist

My opponent bases most of his counter arguments off of the fact that I gave no reaons for why these things exist. The Reason The idea of a categorical imperative exists when bound to an underlying moral force that connects all people together. For the sake of my argument we'll call that humanity. We're all bound together by being human. It's our humanity. This being said we can agree that there are somethings that are simply unacceptable for all people. Such as:genociderapechild killingetcThese are things that based on this moral truth that connects all people together will always be considered wrong. "You ought not rape." That is a categorical imperative because it should be universally accepted for all people.Final Argument At the beginning of the debate my opponent gave no parameters as to where a categorical imperative cannot exist but just states that they do not exist. You can state a categorical imperative. You can believe a categorical imperative. You can practice a categorical imperative therefore the categorical imperative exists. "You ought not commit genocide." This can be stated without an if. There is nothing tied to this action because it is universally accepted, can be applied to all people by all people and can be stated without balancing the reward or expected effect.If someone states this categorical imperative, believes it to be universally binding and then puts it into practice then the categorical imperative exits for that person, that group of people or even society as a whole. In the case of "You ought not commit genocide." you can apply this to the entire planet.Therefore the categorical imperative exists to some people at all times. Since Pro never clarified by saying they do not exist for all people at all times it can be said that this idea can be stated and practiced and therefore exists.
Categorical Imperatives do not exist

Thanks to Conservativepolitico for his response. Counter-Argument It appears that my opponent has cold-dropped my argument from Round 2 and has instead proposed a plan in which I rebut his, but he never rebuts mine (from Round 2). Furthermore, and more importantly, my opponent’s response cannot be considered an argument. At no point in his rebuttal did he even attempt to justify the categorical imperative; he merely explains and defines it. So, in short, his argument is “Kant says so, therefore it must be true. ” The following statements made by Con need justification, yet lack it: 1. “[the hypothetical imperative] is corrupt because it stems from human perceptions which are not pure. ” The wording is ambiguous, and the claim is unwarranted. Firstly, on what grounds does my opponent assert the human perception “impure” and what exactly is meant by that claim? 2. “This statement "I ought to do X" is made because it is a moral obligation. ” Anything can be asserted to be a “moral obligation. ” My opponent needs to justify why certain actions must be done irrespective of personal desire. He then further needs to justify the supremacy of certain actions over others. 3. “Kant says that you ought to always tell the truth period. There are no circumstances tied to this statement. ” There has to be a reason for this statement. If it were rational to assert compulsive declarations without reason, then I could just as easily say “everyone ought to jump off a cliff. ” Through the exigencies of this debate, it is thus necessary for my opponent to justify compulsive statements like the categorical imperative with reason. Whenever my opponent decides to assign a reason to the claim “we ought to always tell the truth,” the statement immediately becomes circumstantial. That reason serves the purpose of an end, and the statement of ought becomes the means. Thus, the ought will only apply to those who agree with the end, or the reason. To clarify and summarize this argument I present this syllogism: P1: All imperatives need reason P2: Reason is subjective C1: all imperatives are subjective P1: a subjective imperative is a hypothetical imperative C2: all imperatives are hypothetical C3: No imperatives are categorical 4. “The universal law” This, like every other part of my opponent’s argument, is not justified. For what reason should moral statements be universalizable? Here is a perfect example of my opponent defining rather than substantiating. The other 2 definitions my opponent provides fall under the same assertive vain, and thus the same refutation. Conclusion I spent round 2 outlining the illogicality of categorical imperatives through the necessity for reasons, and the existence of the human will. My opponent did not refute it, but provided his own argument for his share of the burden. However his text consisted mainly of a lesson in ethics and Kant’s beliefs than a cogent justification of them.
Categorical Imperatives do not exist

IntroductionIn order to fulfil the requirements of this debate I must show that categorical imperatives do indeed exist. To do this I will simply lay out the premise of a categorical imperative and show how it indeed does exist. I am going to lay out my argument here first. Next round, Pro will try to disprove what I have explained here and if needed I will defend myself further in Round 3 and respond to any of the arguments he has made this round. But if everything goes well, proving that a categorical imperative exists should happen right here.The Categorical Imperative The categorical imperative was devised to tell us what moral actions are obligatory. The formula you presented “I ought to do X, if I want Y” is known as a hypothetical imperative and is based completely on the circumstances of what you are trying to achieve. Immanuel Kant says that this form of imperative is corrupt because it stems from human perceptions which are not pure. For Kant, the only moral imperatives were categorical: ‘I ought to do x”, with no reference to desires or needs.This statement "I ought to do X" is made because it is a moral obligation.For example: "I ought always to tell the truth"This would be considered a categorical imperative because it is an obligatory moral right that has no connection to any sort of circumstances. Kant says that you ought to always tell the truth period. There are no circumstances tied to this statement.There are three types of categorical imperative: 1.The universal law – All moral statements should be general laws, which apply to everyone under all circumstances. There should be no occasion under which an exception is made. 2.Treat humans as ends in themselves – Kant argues that you should never treat people as a means to some end. People should always be treated as ends in themselves. This promotes equality. 3.Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends – Kant assumed that all rational agents were able to deduce whether an argument was moral or not through reason alone and so, all rational humans should be able to conclude the same moral laws. [1]The example I gave fell under the "universal law". All moral statements should be general laws which apply to everyone under all circumstances. This removes the need for the "if" in the "ought" statements. All of these types of categorical imperative reinforce the idea of absolute moral law that people must obey because it is their duty to do so and that the morality of an action should not be determined based on the situation it takes place in because then it it subject to human imperfection and is therefore impure.The idea of a categorical imperative is based on moral duty and absolute moral law that has no bearing on any sort of circumstantial situations and should be applied to all people at all times.This idea exists and can be applied to society if people wished.Categorical Imperatives exist. [1] http://members.fortunecity.com...
Categorical Imperatives do not exist

IntroductionHuman beings do not obey moral laws like matter obeys the laws of physics. Physics sets laws in the form of boundaries. Thus obedience of these occurs within the realm of SHALL. (You SHALL do X, for there is no other option.) Obedience of moral laws occurs within the realm of OUGHT (therefore they are only applicable to willed creatures holding the ability to obey or disobey those laws.) Where there is will, there is the option to do X over Y or Y over X. Where one CAN do X instead of Y, there must be a rationale for whatever option was chosen, for reason is the catalyst of predetermined action. Argument P1: All “oughts” must have a condition of “if” in order to exist P2: Categorical Imperatives are “oughts” with no “if”. C: Categorical imperatives do not exist. P1: All “oughts” must have a condition of “if” in order to exist There is no such thing as “I ought to do X.” The logical statement is that “I ought to do X, if I want Y.” Saying that one “ought” to do X implies 2 things: 1) He has the freewill to do otherwise. 2) He must ALWAYS do X as though that freewill did not exist. The statement “one ought to do X” is vacuous and meaningless in that it has no warrant or justification. If we were dealing with subservient creatures, then a declaration of law without warrant would be logical, since it doesn’t have the freewill to do otherwise. However, once the freewill to do otherwise exists, there has to be a justification for the supremacy of one action over the other. Justification can range from “IF one wishes to be moral, he ought not kill” to “IF one fears the wrath of God, he ought not kill.” However, the notion that autonomous creatures are logically bound by empty declarations is simply inconsistent with their willed nature. Any uncorroborated statement like “we ought to X” is a direct contradiction of the natural human will…which dictates that we may do X, Y, or Z. It forces a suppression of the rational consciousness through its creation of unjustified laws. If human beings were MEANT to objectively follow such assertions like “we ought to do X” – empty of a desired end, then we wouldn’t have the free will to NOT do X. “Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but ofany consciousness, of consciousness as such" (1) P2: Categorical Imperatives are “oughts” with no “if” The Ethics encyclopedia describes: “ By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an action, irrespective of one’s personal desires, such as “You ought to do X.” (2) This premise is rather self-evident. ConclusionWhen Kant writes “We ought to do X. Period”…he is asserting a premise-less law, and we do not obey premise-less laws for that is a direct contradiction of our rational and autonomous nature. Sources 1. http://aynrandlexicon.com... 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Categorical Imperatives do not exist

Considering the narrow scope of the resolution, I have limited the debate to 2 rounds of argument and 3,000 characters maximum per round. I will prove that Kant's categorical imperative is a preposterous invention and all imperatives are hypothetical. Whereas, Con will attempt to prove that the categorical imperative exists. Categorical Imperative: an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both required and justified as an end in itself (. http://www.wordiq.com...;) - essentially a reason-less obligation.
If there is no God then how did the universe come into 'existence'

I would like to start off by answering my opponent's questions. Are you trying to say that my questiondoesn't make any sense just because it's from a Christian point of view you claimed to be a Christian so the foundation of your faith should be the bible. Meteors are made of rocks not water. I would highly recommend watching him he could probably help you in your search https://m.youtube.com...
If there is no God then how did the universe come into 'existence'

Hi again!!!I just want to answer your questions to start...Your qeustions were...I would like to first start of by saying how does my opponent know that that's how God created the earth?If you are a Christian why do you not believe in the Bible?Also when has a meteor ever had water inside of it?And where is the evidence for the meteor shower? My answers are.... You asked for this answer in a Christian point of view. Therefore it makes zero sense why you are asking me about my belief in god. You asked me from a Christan point of view therefore I fully believe that god created the earth or in my words caused the big bang theory.I do believe in the bible, however I have spoken to many priests and they have all told me differnet answers to the question of the existance to the universe because this question is very vague. I believe in the bible and have not yet mentioned it. I have not mentioned it yet because it does not propose an answer to your question. The meteors had water patricles that combined to make water. The evidence is found in the left over metors. I also believe in Adam and Eve, but humans were invented from bacteria. So I believe that they were the first humans on earth once bacteria created humans. My source is
If there is no God then how did the universe come into 'existence'

Hi,I can answer this question in as a Christian myself. Many scientists believe that the universe was created by the big bang theory. A big blast of enegry causing planets all over, but that is not all. Once these planets were formed the ancient planet theo chrashed into the tiny core of planet earth creting a planet full of fire. Later there was a metor shower for 10 years (with evidence) inside the metors there were water molecles creating out ocean. Later the metors molcles formed cells to create bacteria the earliest forms of life. I believe as a Christian that god was the enegry that created the blast in the big bang theory. (Not the show the scientifc theory) Hope I can get a response.
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

People with genetic disorders often need tests to get these results. These genetic tests can range anywhere from $100 to $2,000 depending on the complexity of the test, but costs can go up if more than one test is needed or family members need to be tested in order to receive an accurate result. Some people simply cannot afford to get these tests, it is entirely unjust to exclude them from coverage when people without genetic complications can get coverage for tests for things such as glaucoma and pelvic exams, which result in no cost to them. Those tests are meant to better the health of a person, so why wouldn't you allow people to better their health just because of genetic complications? Even people who have recently realized their conditions can get help, its never a case in where help will not be provided because of your lack of knowledge before hand, there may be limited help, but there are still things that ca be done, or provided to help their condition in some way. Sources: ghr.nih.gov/handbook/testing/costsresults medicare.gov/coverage/pap-tests-pelvic-exams-screening.html
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

Although this act does its best to accommodate the public, certain people can also be denied coverage or at least have only certain implications to the medical needs. Genetic tests are being frequently studied in order to increase funds for Medical insurance along with the studies of lowering the risk of developing genetic disorders or at least decrease the progression of the genetic disorder to the point of being a complication that either ends in death or in serious long-lasting difficulties that only a certain amount of people experience. If medical insurance were to include genetic disorders, what will certain hospitals do to accommodate these new strict guidelines, detect at certain disorders/stages, or provide help to individuals who recently realized their current condition(s) that involve economical and/or emotional needs? Sources: healthcare.gov breastcancer.org
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

previous sources: www.genome.gov/10002077 www.medicaid.go/AffordableCareAct/Affordable-Care-Act.html] Its known as the Affordable Care Act, and it is not limited to one person. The ACA is meant for every person who is seeking health insurance, so benefits are same across the board. Someone who does not know these changes would be at fault of their issuer, because they re suppose to cover their plan in full. Some people worry that having a genetic risk factors for a disease will be considered a "pre-existing condition", and that their health plan might deny them coverage or make them pay higher fees which is against federal law. Without coverage, costs for treatments will be extremely high, while people who don't have genetic risks are perfectly covered and saving their money. Its unjust t leave someone out of coverage because of genetic factors, things out of their control. source: http://www.cedars-sinai.edu...
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

Your argument features the Affordable Healthcare Act, however, people who have more complications than other people will have to pay more for their insurance and for their treatment/medication. People who are unaware of these possible challenges will be filed with lawsuits and certain treatment will be questioned if those people who have unusual/rare conditions that will be brought up to their medical records. How can the AHA benefit the common individual who do not have genetic disorders than ones who do and if what of any further complications that will come to pass? Sources: ndsu.edu/pubweb breastcancer.org
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

There is no questioning if medical insurance should require coverage to people with genetic disorders because the Affordable Care Act states that issuers offering health insurance must provide coverage for all individuals who request it, and they are prohibited from discriminating against patients with genetic disorders by refusing coverage because of "pre-existing conditions". You also stated that "many people are debating on the fact that by adding genetic disorders as a category or a requirement for health insurance can only increase this problem", when in fact the Affordable Care Act promotes prevention, wellness and public health, and supports health promotion efforts at the local, state, and federal level. Some with genetic disorders only have DNA that make them more likely to develop diseases and such, but there is never a guarantee they will develop it. Health insurance helps to find the problem and find ways to slow it down, or prevent it, so why would you deny them coverage to help prevent such health issues from occurring because of the way their DNA is set up?
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

Medical Insurance consistently becomes a major problem for people who are not able to afford it, and finding help with people who have genetic disorders also doesn't make the situation any better. Many people are debating on the fact that by adding genetic disorders as a category or a requirement for health insurance can only increase this problem and add even more or help people who are not qualified to understand the topic and do not need to know much about medical insurance. What good intentions or possible problems can arise if medical insurance requires coverage for genetic disorders? Sources: actuary.org/files/geneticndsu.edu/pubweb
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

[previous source: aflac.com/individuals/realcost/source/#leukemia_children] Those with insurance still have to pay a certain amount of their treatments, insurance usually covers 50% of the cost for mental health issues, and 80% of the cost for those with physical complications. But those with genetic disorders are expected to pay for all of their treatments, and wont get the coverage that the others do. Lawful actions are completely just because they aren't getting equal coverage. Only those who don't have genetic complications say that it is unfair because they receive "larger compensations', when in reality they want coverage just like those who have it already for non-genetic reasons. The Equal Pay/ Compensation Discrimination law states that you cannot put compensation discrimination in place because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Health care providers are discriminating people because of their disabilities, and not allowing them to receive equal compensation, so the patients take actions with the law in order to gain this compensation that they were deprived of to begin with. Sources: www.apa.org/helpcenter/federal-parity-law.aspx www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

In order to understand a common person’s perspective, there is no better than the person’s themselves. If parents were to find out that the child within the mother will have a genetic disorder, the parents can mentally prepare what the child can have or what side effects the child may demonstrate. The medical professionals can then provide the parents with options on what their future decisions must rely on and detail them with the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (2008) to prevent health insurance deduct certain medication/treatment or any other categories of provisions in which patients have the law beside them. The majority however, in which most people do not like to admit it, do not have genetic disorders and would only take into consideration if they have complications themselves. Yet, there are people who take advantage of the Health Care Act, and is limited to, those who win their rights that are not within standards of law. Therefore, these said people have an advantage over the rest and all applicants will not receive the same amount of compensation or use the appropriate system for any potential lawsuits or real medical converge without being caught. Sources: genome.gov actuary.org/files/geneticmono
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

It is unfair to exclude someone from insurance or coverage just because there is no cure, treatments are meant to lengthen someone's life. Medical insurance should allow treatments, even when there is no cure, for people who are attempting to lengthen their life span. An example of a genetic disorder would be Leukemia. On average, the cost for treatments are $55,196 -- $166,039 per patient. Insurance should cover a good portion of the costs, because expecting a person to pay it all on their own is unjustifiable, and gives the patient every right to sue their issuer for not providing them with medical coverage, which is the entire reason the plan is in place.
Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

Modern medical research can only do so much and along with the economical points to fund for it. Typically, there are no cures for genetic disorders for there are only treatments- and for some, treatments are not enough. There are lawsuits out for facilities from people who are attempting to obtain more than what their coverage can apply so what then can medical insurance provide that it does not before adding genetic disorder restrictions? Sources: http://www2.le.ac.uk... breastcancer.org
Teens should have cell phones

Teens should have cell phones because what if something happens to them and they have no way of reaching help? What if their mom or dad falls asleep and forgets to pick them up from somewhere? What would they do if they don't have access to a phone? I don't have my own phone and I never have. I need one because my school never lets students back into the building after they leave and my dad is prone to falling asleep before picking me up and I'm not allowed to walk home. And I would ask someone to use their phone but they always lie and say they don't have minutes but walk away texting someone. I think teens should have cell phones. I would rather have a phone with a QWERTY keyboard though...I can type fast on a computer keyboard so it'd be nice cause on the old phone keyboards with 1abc 2def..etc i can't text more than 3 words a minute. Okay overprotective parents, go ahead and tell me why teens shouldn't have cell phones.