BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consequentialism is a valid normative ethical system

I haven't ignored any of Pro's contentions and I am not sure why Pro feels this way. Pro's entire system of Consequentialism works like this: The first event: God or singularity All actions: The result of occurrences after this event making them inevitable. All consequences: The results of the resultant actions from the first event. Basis of value: intrinsic within actions. My opponent has failed to prove the existence of free will and said it was irrelevant to the debate and that a lack of its existence would have supported my side instead. I already explained how this is wrong. If every action is the consequences of chemical and biological processes in a person's brain and body then there is absolutely no reason to identify an action as a non-consequence. Just because not all consequences are actions doesn't mean that not all actions consequences and I have no clue why Pro states that one has to be equal to the other rather than one being the subset of the other thing. Actions are like lions and consequences are like cats. There are cats that are not lions but there are no lions that are not cats. So it follows from this that if all actions are consequences of chemical and biological events then they should not be judged any more intrinsically than consequences are. Thus, since Pro's entire system revolves around intrinsically judging consequences of actions as opposed to the actions themselves, this distinction is never justified. Why do consequences of actions redeem intrinsic judgement whilst actions, which themselves are consequences are supposedly supposed to be extrinsic of morality? This is something we'll never know because the answer doesn't exist. My opponent says that if the rock falls out of the sky and makes bad things happen, the rock falling out of the sky is therefore good. He never once explains how to consequentially determine whether what the rock falling causes is good or bad. He leaves that to the magical work of... Well... Nothing. If Consequentialism had 'bad' consequences it is theoretically self-refuting and paradoxical. This is not about it being applied this is about the very theory of glorifying a lucky psychopath for accidentally doing good. I don't care if he turns out to be a good guy at the end of the day I am saying that it's theoretically flawed to do such a thing because is punishing people based on the luck of their accidents rather than the malignancy of their intentions. This is both flawed as a normative ethical system and an applied one too. I conclude that Consequentialism is both baseless in its assertion of judging consequences non-consequentially whilst judging actions, which are a subset of consequences, consequentially. I also would like to point out that the theory of a luck-based code of ethics is impossible to justify as being valid bee that would indicate that good and evil have no consistency at all and that therefore morality altogether has no purpose, which, in turn, negates the entire concept of a valid basis of morality altogether.
Consequentialism is a valid normative ethical system

In order for the debate to proceed I think it is important to understand what the terms 'intrinsic' and 'value' mean. Intrinsic, in the context of this debate, should be taken to mean belonging to a thing by its very nature (as opposed to the resulting consequences). Value, in the context of this debate, should be taken to be the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something. Now, I am going to use those two definitions to explain why Consequentialism is a self-defeating basis for morality and deems itself as an immoral thing to believe in and carry out. There are three, very different, issues with Consequentialism that Pro seems to be merging into one. The first issue is that to state that a consequences can be intrinsically more valuable than an alternative consequence is to indicate that Consequentialism is a slave system to a mother system of non-Consequential valuing. It is stating that we can judge every act and event by the consequences of them but that we must judge the consequences without looking at the consequences of the consequences. This is circular reasoning and has ended up at the dilemma of relying on intrinsic valuing for the consequences themselves. This irrational differentiation between an act and consequence is actually erroneous to begin with. My opponent must first prove that free will exists before stating that an act is anything other than the consequence of genetics and hormones within a person leading them to act the way that they do. The second is that ignorance is not malice. I shall continue on this line of thought by extending this to say that there is in fact no such thing as an intelligible action and everyone is ignorant to begin with since no one knows anything outside of their subjective perception. All actions are consequences but not all consequences are actions. Actions are a subset of consequences that result form chemical processing in one's brain leading to neurological movement of one's biologically bound body in a world full of many intrinsic, non-consequential, laws of physics that are completely unbreakable within this universe. Thus if all actions are consequences, Consequentialism would lead us to seem them innately good or bad. The third issue with Consequentialism is that the consequences of glorifying lucky psychopaths and condemning unfortunate loyalists creates a system that gives moral authority to people regardless of their proneness to consistently do good or evil in the future. This is a system that is bound to end up failing and thus the very consequences of Consequentialism are intrinsically flawed.
Consequentialism is a valid normative ethical system

Thank you for accepting, con. My starting contentions are as follows. 1. When the consequences of an act have value, the value of the consequences are relevant to the act itself. For example, lying might be considered a bad act, but if the act of lying leads to saving the lives of several people, then the act itself is good (assuming the lives of those people has more value than the value of the alternative consequences. 2. Since this is assuming there is good in this world, there is always an amount of said good, calculatable or otherwise. If the only thing that had value was mattresses, for example, then the destruction of a mattress would have positive value if said destruction lead to more mattresses. That's because in a world where the mattress was not destroyed, there would be less good than in the world with more mattresses. Situations with less good are objectively worse. 3. What is the alternative to consequentialism? All of the prominent alternatives rely on consequentialist theories. Virtue ethics dictate that morals revolve around the character of people rather than specific actions, but what that means is that value is held within character, so the best actions always maximize that value. I await your response.
Consequentialism is a valid normative ethical system

Hello everyone. I am debating this topic again, as I am confused as to the reasoning that took place in the previous debate. This debate is once again under the assumption of moral realism, and the consequentialism in question refers solely to its place in the normative ethics field. The first round is for acceptance, and all following rounds will be producing and rebuting arguments. No new arguments will be made in the final round, however. The definitions from the previous debate continue unto this one.
I'm better than u

An expert for Jonbonbon's Abridged Encyclopedia of Trolling and Missing About 2nd Edition: "Trolls who participate in senseless joking... Are not only degrading to the intelligence of the site they troll... And the reputation of more refined trolls. Refined trolling involves playing with people's minds in psychological ways. It requires a level of intelligence beyond what most trolls are capable of." This sort of trolling is amusing only to one, while refined trolling is amusing to everyone plus the individuals opposed to the target of the troll. You are the former, not the latter. That's why I'm superior.
I'm better than u

Oh, how convincing. Clearly you're a troll. I'm generally a troll too, but here's why I'm better than you: I'm more refined in my trolling. Granted, most people still don't like it, but it's still more refined. Random stupid debates like this are damaging to the image of trolls. We have a certain class to maintain. I even get offended by this simplistic of a sense of humor. Don't make me break out the Jonbonbon Abridged Encyclopedia articles on you.
I'm better than u

I'm better than u lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All Guns Should Not Be Banned

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I realize that Australia did not ban all guns. My point was that the removal of guns - of any kind - from the public has helped to decrease gun violence in Australia, and that the same tactic, including the bad of handguns, could work in the U.S. as well.Yes, people do need training if they are going to own a firearm. Unfortunately, that training is not required. In fact, "If you want to give a gun to your son or daughter or you want to sell it to your neighbors or friends, there is no background check required," and "gun shows are also frequented by private collectors who set up tables to buy, sell and trade guns. These sales do not require a federal license if they're made between two people in the same state. And they don't require a background check" (http://www.usatoday.com...). Basically, anyone can obtain a gun legally. As for the "gun being locked away" argument, the video you provided in your last post shows that you would need 21 feet and already have your gun in hand to be safe from an attacker with only a knife. The goal of self-defense should be to incapacitate an assailant, not kill them. If you have the time and distance from an intruder to grab a gun from a safe, then you also have the time to grab and use a taser. Also, because the purpose of the taser is purely self-defense, they are not made to be deadly, meaning that the chance of a child killing someone with a taser is much less than of a gun. Yes, I agree that if using any weapon, one should have the training to be able to use that weapon responsibly. Unfortunately, because receiving training is not greatly enforced, the safest option for self-defense is a non-lethal weapon (preferably a taser). If you are focused on the rights for families, then you also have to hold the safety of the children at the highest level.
All Guns Should Not Be Banned

Unfortunately, my side of the argument was strengthened a few days ago, June 24, when Christy Sheats shot and killed her two daughters with her handgun. (http://www.cnn.com...)Because Pro focused majorly on cities with higher rates of violent crime, I will as well. In cities like Chicago, where the chance of falling victim to violent crime is 1:113 (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...), the most common violent crime is aggravated assault while the least common is murder. This trend is actually present in most of the U.S. While the amount of murder in the country is no where near low, murder is still not the most violent crime. I point this out to say that the use of a deadly weapon - a handgun - should only be considered necessary if one is threatened with deadly force. While mace and a taser are relatively close-range protection when compared to a handgun, not having accidental discharge - possibly killing oneself or another innocent person - is too big of a factor to overlook. "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people" (http://smartgunlaws.org...). The argument could also be made for simply getting better home security rather than a handgun. In regards to criminals seeking and getting handguns, Pro called for a "stronger gun policy focused on preventing legal guns from getting to criminals..." The strongest gun policy to prevent criminals from getting guns would be to simply get rid of the guns all together. The strongest case has already been made by Australia. Their gun buyback and subsequent gun ban caused "the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia [to fall] by more than 50% -- and stayed there" (http://www.cnn.com...). Their ban made for less reasons to even need a gun for protection. Australia also banned the importation of firearms from other countries (which is easier to do in Australia because they are basically an island, but still possible in the U.S.). No country will ever be able to fully be rid of guns, the black-market will always exist. However, the less firearms are made readily available, there will be less of a need to use firearms for any reason. I'd also argue that if you keep a gun in your home to protect your child, you significantly increase the risk of your child taking and using your gun. If you keep your gun in a safe or location that is difficult to access in order to keep children from using the gun, then how useful is that gun when you are confronted by an immediate threat or multiple attackers? Handguns in the home present many more cons than pros.
All Guns Should Not Be Banned

Before the debate begins please note I am not making a case for automatic, or semiautomatic weapons. My opinion pertains to families and citizens who own handguns for their own self protection. I believe by banning guns it would force law abiding to have no protection against criminals who obtain guns illegally. This especially pertains to those living in areas where the crime rate is higher. I do not feel owning a gun is or everybody, but it should not be illegal to citizens who only intend to use it for self defense. To the acceptor: Please reply with a short paragraph stating your position. I look forward to your reply.
Smoking is good for you, And I love it!

I would like to clarify my statement about smoking. There is too many taboos about cigarettes being very bad. I want people to realize that it's not that bad. If it was it would be illegal like cocaine and heroin. Smoking used to be a norm, You could smoke in a restaurant, A movie theater, An airplane, Mall, Pretty much anywhere, But today smoking has become stigmatized as being really bad. Well smoking is not bad for you, Don't let the anti smoking propaganda agencies fool you. Smoking is no worse than consuming alcohol, Which incidentally is very bad for your heart and liver. Also how many people drink and drive and cause deaths on the road. While with a cigarette you can still drive a car, Or do any other activity. Unless you are smoking over 1 pack a day, Everyday, Smoking is not that much more harmful than other things in society. Why is it smoking is stigmatized as bad, But serving sugary sodas to children, With tons of corn syrup or fatty foods are not stigmatized the same way? Smoking is a personal choice like gambling, Drinking, Doing drugs. And unlike other drugs it's is not illegal as per the Health department. If it was so bad, It would not be available for sale, Like cocaine and meth and heroin which are illegal and can only be purchased from a drug dealer. Smoking does have it's benefits like "Smoking may lower risk of knee replacement. . . . "Smoking may lower risk of Parkinson's disease. . . . "Smoking may lower risk of obesity. . . . "Smoking may lower risk of death after some heart attacks. . . . "Smoking may alleviate ulcerative colitis. . . . "Smoking may reduce stress Smoking is LEGAL as recognized by the health department, It's available for sale anywhere and is no worse than alcohol. Therefore people need to get rid of this stigma that smoking is so bad. Until the 2000's smoking was a regular habit of society, Kids could buy them for their parents with a note from the convenience store, It was normal to have an ashtray beside your phone at work to talk on the phone and have a cigarette, Or go for dinner and have a nice cigarette after in the smoking section of the restaurant. Smoking gets a bad rap and I want to void those misconceptions about cigarettes being bad. Smoking is a personal choice and it's not bad like the propaganda society tries to feed you. Smoking is good and there is nothing better than to light up a nice Camel cigarette after a long day at work to reduce stress and relax. No different than having a glass of bourbon after a long day at work. Cigarette smoking is not bad, It has it's benefits.
Smoking is good for you, And I love it!

As soon as you specified what kind of substance was being smoked, I as well as most people knew where this is headed. You're advocating for the claim that smoking is good for you, Implying that this activity is beneficial for everyone. Here are my points on why your argument is not viable and justifiable: Your opening segment seems okay and solid. It is a possibility that there are many negative misconceptions associated with smoking cigarettes. Whether are true or not will be determined within this debate and we will both be the judges so I'd appreciate it if you don't troll. Your own testimonial on smoking is subjective and anecdotal. It is also not credible due to the fact that you are, Supposedly, A twelve-year-old kid and that your view on smoking may not be representative or the majority opinion within the smoking community. If you can give me a survey that supports your rhetoric that most smokers love smoking cigarettes and that it's good for them, Then it can be approved. You have established the proven fact that cigarettes alleviate Ulcerative Colitis and that it is not a cause of conditions like Ulcerative Colitis. Superficially, This point effectively supports your claim that smoking cigs are a good way to improve your health. However, If we were to assess the number/efficacy of positive effects in comparison to the number/severity of negative effects in smoking cigarettes, We would conclude that the negatives outnumber and outweigh the positives by a lot. Positive effects include but are not limited to: a false/deluded sense of stress relief and relaxation, Alleviation of IBDs, Low risk of obesity, Lowers risk of Parkinson's disease. Negative effects include: lung cancer, Mouth cancer, Throat cancer, Milanosis, Tooth loss, Tooth decay, "Smoker's Face"(premature wrinkling and sallow coloration) birth defects, Stenosis, Periodontitis, Second-hand smoking, Addiction, Stress exacerbation, Increase risk of engaging in substance abuse, Etc. Evidently, The cons to smoking completely overshadow the minute number of pros when it comes to smoking. Furthermore, There is a multitude of alternatives for cigarettes in regards to the list of positive effects of smoking. Substitutes such as taking a break/chewing gum/listening to music/meditation, Medication, Exercise/liposuction/eating healthy, Etc. Are all great ways to reap those benefits in contrast to smoking. And what's so great about these alternatives is that they don't come with the many dangers and lethal side effects that smoking cigarettes have. While tobacco was the basis for the economy that our nation was built off from, It is not the representation of our nation's ethics or at least something that we shouldn't be proud of. Slavery was part of our economy for a while, But we shouldn't uphold that legacy. Besides, We can still use tobacco without putting it in cigs.
Smoking is good for you, And I love it!

Despite all the misconceptions about smoking being bad and all the negativity about smoking, In fact smoking is good for you and I love smoking and blowing smoke in the non smokers faces as they give me their sour face in disgust. So let me provide you some real facts about benefits of smoking. Smoking Alleviates Ulcerative Colitis, People who suffer from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Smoking seems to relieve their worst symptoms. At a recent conference on IBD in San Francisco, IBD expert Stephen Hanauer speculated that everything from our diets to tylenol to colder climates might be to blame for the recent rise in IBD diagnoses, Especially in developed countries. But cigarette smoking, Which is largely a 20th Century phenomenon, Doesn"t gel with theories about IBD being a consequence of modern lifestyles, Because it can actually ward off ulcerative colitis. A handful of small studies has shown that nicotine might be a useful therapy for ulcerative colitis Protects Against Parkinson"s Disease, The more people smoke, The less likely they are to develop Parkinson"s disease. This inverse correlation was first observed in the 1960s, By epidemiologist Harold Kahn. When he analyzed the health insurance records of nearly 300, 000 veterans, Kahn noticed that smokers who had served in the US military between 1917 and 1940 were three-times less likely than non-smokers to have later died of Parkinson"s disease, In cases of Parkinson"s disease, Dopamine producing neurons in the midbrain degenerate and die. But nicotine appears to protect these neurons Smoking also curbs weight loss, As nicotine suppresses appetite and smoking can be a great way to lose weight. And finally lets not forget this country was founded on tobacco, It was the tobacco production in the 1600's that made America the country it is today. So next time you see a smoker, Give him/her a nod not a sour face, And maybe I won't blow smoke in your face. Go ahead let me know how cigarettes are not good for you
Smoking is good for you, And I love it!

I'm gonna have to point out that you still haven't given sources or support on: The number of people who think smoking is good, And that they love it. Certain statements about smoking dcibs that are misconceptions and are not scientific phenomenon. You also haven't addressed my point on the issue of nicontine and how it affects a person's health and overall lifestyle. First you argued that smoking is bad, But good. Now you are arguing that everything is bad unless it is consumed or used at modearte levels. This is false. We cannot use this logic to judge the safety of waht we put into our bodies. There are materials out there that are good, But can be bad if we use them over the limit. And then there are materials taht are innatley bad, Like cigarettes. If there is no distinction, Then there shouldn't be a problem for a kid to go to a liquor store to buy some alcohol or for a person to go in an alley and get crack. But it IS a problem and there IS line drawn between good and bad things. Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of preventable disease. There are more than 16 million Americans who are living with a disease caused by smoking. Smoking is a known cause for not erectile disfunction. Smoking causes 480, 000 deaths (13, 000 per day) every year in the U. S. , 6 million worldwide. Keep it fresh, Yo. Fresh Empire mike drap