BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Trolley Problem

It is something rarely displayed on this website. Secondly, I apologize if what I assumed you meant was wrong. Now onto the debate. I see what you mean in your likening of this to a bullying incident. However, I must point out this: in the trolley problem, taking action would result in the death of a human being. Taking action in the bullying situation would only help people. I am all for helping others, so long as it is not detrimental to someone else. Also, I would like to bring into the debate a common issue in our society today: suicide in subway stations (bear with me here). You see, many people in urban settings who wish to commit suicide throw themselves into the way of oncoming trains. Now the conductors of these trains have an option. They can slam the breaks, possibly injuring or killing those aboard the train, or they can let the train hit the person. No operator has, to my knowledge, risked their passengers to save the person on the tracks. I would say this can be likened to my non-willingness to harm someone to help someone else. I would just like to once more thank my opponent for their time. It is rare to find such a mentally challenging debate, and I enjoyed this one thoroughly.
The Trolley Problem

To counter my oppnenet's assumption of what I meant, I did not mean that letting the ten people die was an action. That is, "an omission of help". Although it is a lack of action, I would argue that committing, and ignoring an action that would lead to any kind of result, bad or good, would still have to be judged morally, or ethically. To try to illustrate my point, I hope my opponent will forgive me for using another scenario. A captain of a nuclear submarine sends ten mechanics to fix a broken engine. The engine room houses a nuclear generator that is about to leak, and he sends the mechanics in to attempt to stop it. Beforehand, he could have jettisoned the engine room, but he wanted to see if he could fix it (call it human error). During the repairs, the engine goes critical, and the captain has a choice: to seal the engine room, saving the entire crew of a hundred men, by sacrificing the ten mechanics, or to do nothing, letting the mechanics try to escape the engine room, but therefore allowing the leak to destroy the entire ship, killing everyone. The captain, must choose the first one, since the deaths of everyone outweigh the deaths of the mechanics. To relate back to the original scenario, the captain is essentially the decider of the fate of where the trolley will go. The engine is essentially the trolley. The mechanics are the one person. The crew are the ten people. Sealing the engine room is basically similar of alternating the track so the ten people live, Letting the mechanics escape is similar to letting the trolley hit. It is my understanding that the person deciding the fate of the people in The Trolley Problem, has a moral obligation to the ten people, since inaction leads to their death, and I believe inaction must be judged as importantly as action; a bystander to a, let's say an act of bullying, must be judged as well as the bully, because the bystander could have taken means to stop it, but for whatever reason, refused to. Thank you for the debate. I appreciate you taking the time to write your arguments.
The Trolley Problem

The discrepancy, if I'm not misunderstanding my opponent`s last statement, would be that he considers doing nothing an action, while I do not. Letting the train go on its way is an option, not an action. Meanwhile, consciously turning a train into a collision course with another person is an option and an action. Your knowledge has no effect on the outcome of whether your choice is an option or an action. Also, The instance in which a doctor refuses a patient care is incomparable, because A) A doctor has a moral obligation to save the person, whereas a normal trolley passenger does not, and B) The passenger isn't refusing to save the people when he has the option, he is simply not doing anything to stop their deaths Sources: None (This is a philosophical debate, not a factual one)
The Trolley Problem

In this scenario, you know that through your actions, the ten people will be saved. You also know that they will die if you do not take any action. A doctor, who has the means to save someone, but refuses, would still be killing the person through omission of help. This applies to the Trolley Problem, since you know the result, therefore, one is obligated to save as many individual lives there are. There is no difference, in terms of intention, between killing the one person, since you know that he will die if you perform Action A, and killing the ten people, since you know they will die as well. The logical outcome must be to save ten people as opposed to one. Ten people outweigh one person, and since this is a thought experiment, each person is entirely the same (meaning, one isn't a criminal, or all ten of them are pregnant women, or etc.). Con is stating that the deaths of the ten wouldn't be the fault of the decider, but it am arguing that, since the decider knows the ten people will die, and has the means to prevent that, with the causality being one instead of ten, then it would be the decider's fault.
The Trolley Problem

While I see your point, I definitely believe that your choice is wrong. In allowing the train to continue forward, you would not be guilty for the deaths of those people. Sure, you failed to save them, but you also didn't purposefully kill them. In a Harvard study (1), 66% percent of people said that choosing to kill one person in favor of saving multiple others was wrong. The reasoning frequently given by the test subjects was that you were using the man on the other track to as means to achieve a more desirable outcome. And while some may agree with Niccolo Machiavelli, who famously said that "and in the actions of all men, one judges by the result" (2), I believe that killing someone to save another is immoral. Sources: (1)- http://www.pbs.org... (2)- http://www.csmonitor.com...
The Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem (it probably has different names, but I'm sticking to this one), is the ethical scenario that challenges whether or not the killing of one is less evil than the killing of many. The scenario goes like this: There is a trolley (or train, tram, etc.) that is on a collision course with ten people. The people cannot move, and they will die, unless you, seeing a lever that will turn the vehicle away from the ten people, but will strike only one person standing on the opposite track, killing him. By doing nothing, you allow ten people to die, but by doing something, you intentionally and knowingly kill one person. I, as Pro, will argue that it is right to sacrifice the one person to save the ten people. Con will argue that it is wrong to murder the one to save the ten people.
It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None.

By you not giving credit where credit is due, In your case with this argument it means you knowingly plagiarized something that there's no possible way that you could have composed on your own. Why do you think I called you on your 100% bluff? Um no its you that has lost not only all credibility but all integrity. "Biased for the passage"? Huh? What? Do you even have the croaking frog birth canal of wisdom to know AT ALL what you are squawking about? Don't answer that. The answer is a definitive "no".
It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None.

Um no. Its "then" I must conclude you are illiterate or there is a screw loose in there. " Which is your scattered snot meat sow toxic brain cabbage batbrain. "Is this good English? " No dildo breath, Its horrid se' habla Espanol? " "It is/ clear then that there is neither place, /nor void, Nor time, Outside the heaven. " What place? What "the" heaven? Prove that "the" heaven actually exists. "Hence whatever is there, " What is "there" if you have no where? "Is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, What nature would that be? What occupance? Again, What place? "Nor does time age it;" What does not time age? "nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion;" That's a pretty big sentence for yah scatterbrain. OK. So then according to you YOUR heaven does not exist. "they" who is they? "continue What continues "through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, "? Oh I get it, "they" - right? What does "Living the best and most self sufficient of lives"? "From the fulfill/ment of the whole heaven derive the being and life which other things, " WHAT DOES? WHAT DOES? "Some more or less articulately but other feebly, Enjoy. " Wow, What a complete failure on your part that you knowingly did not come up with, But plagiarized it without giving credit to the source. Good job! Keep your track record going!
It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None.

Than I must conclude you are illiterate or there is a screw loose in there. Is this good English? "It is/ clear then that there is neither place, /nor void, Nor time, Outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, Is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, Nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, Living the best and most self sufficient of lives" From the fulfill/ment of the whole heaven derive the being and life which other things, Some more or less articulately but other feebly, Enjoy.
It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None.

Due to the fact that your English is so terrible, I have no idea, None, As to what on Earth you are trying to say. If you wish this debate to continue, You are required to rephrase your entire argument and thus "growing a brain" is not an insult. But get an education and use a god damned spell check is. Also it might be a little bit helpful if you knew what you were talking about because you don't even know. Have fun. My oh my your first RD was completely wasted. Care to try for another? This time don't put the dingbat clause under your cabbage batbrain while you meow at the moon in your pink panty love song fable nosebleeds. If you cannot state what you mean so that its understandable to others, Without having mega dud grammatical errors in your debate, And even taking those errors out so that your language is not understandable, That's not my problem, That's entirely yours.
It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None.

Well you cannot prove God as you cannot prove existence. I. E. Say that there was no existence of God. Than we would have to prove that there is a Alpha to our existence. When you say that there is no God you are saying that there is no beginning and a end. Furthermore, You must prove that there is no God to disprove the existence of God. Thus I can say there is a God and you cannot disprove it. I. E. If you say that there are aliens and I say there isn't, You cannot disprove me until you or I experience Aliens. However, You cannot prove the beginning nor the end because you cannot experience it. In theological terms we conciser this actuality and Causality. Or in science terms Newtons Laws of Physics. There must be a action onto an object to cause a reactions. But we must discuss the verrry first action to cause the universe. This cannot be explain without an existence of a beginning action, Which I believe is a God.
It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None.

It is always always always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None. You as my debating opponent MUST prove that your god(s) exists. After all why should it be the atheists positioning to prove something that has never been proven? Talk about being extra counterproductive. And better yet, Why should an atheist even care to prove that your god(s) even exists? Even better? Why do you think that creationists will not put their god on trial again? They are not THAT hellaciously stupid after all. They will not put their god on trial again because they know better and they know that they cannot possibly win their case because after all, All they have to go on as evidence is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved. Now here's the catcher. . . Since creationists cannot and will not stand behind their product, Namely their god, And thus take responsibility for their product, This means that they cannot possibly be trusted. So how can any of these creationists, How can any of them be trusted for ---anything---? In other words, Anything any creationist has to say, Dream or think because of this is completely invalid and worthless. dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
Is isis good

Aaaaa aa aa a a aa aaa. A a a a a aa a. A a aa a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a aa a a. A a a a a a a a a a a. A a a a a a aa a a a a a a a Aaaaa aa aa a a aa aaa. A a a a a aa a. A a aa a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a aa a a. A a a a a a a a a a a. A a a a a a aa a a a a a a a Aaaaa aa aa a a aa aaa. A a a a a aa a. A a aa a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a aa a a. A a a a a a a a a a a. A a a a a a aa a a a a a a a Aaaaa aa aa a a aa aaa. A a a a a aa a. A a aa a a a a a GOD FUDGE THIS "DEBATE"!
Is isis good

is isis good b bb b b b bb b b bb b bb b b bb b b bb b b bb b b b b b bb b b b b bb b bb b b bb b b bb b b bb b b b b b b b bb b bb bb b bb b bb b b b b b b b bb b b b b bb b b b bb b b b b b b b bb b b b b bb b b b b bb b bb bb b b bb b b bb b bb b bbbbb b b b b b b b b bb b b b bb b b bb b bb b bbbb b b bb bb b b b b bb b b bb bbbbb b bb bb b bb b bb b b b bbb b b bb b b b b b b b b b b bb bb bb b b b b b b b b bb b b bb b b b b bb bb b b b b b b b b bbb b b
Fighting ISIS

"The same story" This claim doesn"t really work with this debate because if you refer back to my first contention you will see that the pentagon estimated it would take about 3 years to combat ISIS and while Iraq is a mess, that is not topical to today's debate of fighting ISIS, not the Iraqian government. "Cost" My opponent also mentions that there would be a very high cost however isn"t this high cost worth it to reassert that the United States is a world power to be reckoned with instead of a feeble nation that can"t keep a promise. Isn"t our safety and rights worth the high cost? "Unnecessary" My opponent claims that sending ground troops to fight ISIS is not needed however they mention that ISIS "is widely spread out" meaning that they control a large region of land and that the airstrikes aren"t really working making ground forces therefore necessary. "Unwanted" My opponent makes a weak claim that the United States is unpopular in the middle east however they provide no statistics to prove this claim. Elliot Abrams reported for the Council on Foreign Relations in 2012 that the syrian rebels want United States help to overthrow Assad and ISIS.
Fighting ISIS

In this round I will provide the introduction of my contentions, all contentions will be expanded on in later rounds. C1: The Same StoryIn 2003 we justified the Iraq war by saying that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Hussein did commit many atrocities, but did we really help? Iraq is a mess, it’s government is built on corruption, and not the democracy we promised. 70% of iraq’s population lacks clean drinking water(1), and Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorist organizations. We cannot send ground troops to the middle east without being able to guarantee that the same things won't happen. The US was never good at reconstruction, in fact our own reconstruction was a failure. The US is not popular in the middle east, so sending troops there would not help our cause. By sending troops the middle east would just revert back to the storm after we leave. C2: CostThe current war against ISIS without ground troops is costing 300k per hour(2). This is an insane amount of money, and that is only from air strikes. It costed approximately 2.1 million dollars for every single troop that was stationed in afghanistan(3). We cannot pinpoint the amount of troops it would take to take out ISIS because ISIS is widely spread out, but the amount of be very large. There is also the cost of american lives, we would be sacrificing thousands of lives to try to take out ISIS not to mention we would laso have to fight other terrorist organisations while we are at it. The cost of sending ground troops to the middle is too high, and the constant airstrikes will suffice. C3: UnnecessaryWe do not need to send troops to the middle east to destroy ISIS, thought it would make it faster. This speed is not worth the cost, so we should just be patient. During the age of Al Qaeda the middle east was not liberated by US troops, but instead by local militias with the US providing air support. We are providing enough support to take out ISISC4: UnwantedThe US is not at all popular in the middle east, and by semnding ground troops to Iraq and Syria we are just adding fuel to the flame. I will remind everyone that in the iranian revolution it was a popular passtime for rebels to burn american flags. We are not wanted in the middle east and it is time to see that. Citations1. . http://in.reuters.com...2.http://www.theatlantic.com...3.http://csbaonline.org...
Fighting ISIS

Debate Settings10,000 Character arguments72 Hour argument time14 Day VotingOpponent must have completed 1 debate, this is to avoid a new member accepting then freezing the debate, if you have not completed one debated and wish to accept this debate please message me or leave a commentComplete TopicShould the U. S. send ground troops to fight the Islamic State group? Note: Contender is debating for sending ground troops to fight ISISTermsISISISIS stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and is an extremist militant group that rules by Wahhabi/Salafi law. Syn: IS, ISILGround Troopssoldiers who operate on the ground, as opposed to the air or the seaRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login10.
American Liberals Are on the Wrong Side of Mexican Illegal Immigration

To finish, liberals should consider the Mexican Revolution which happened when Mexican immigration to the United States started: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... The revolution concluded with the IRP (that now corrupts social programs) taking power by manipulating the political situation at hand. Before the Revolution, foreign investment on a multiculturalist basis usurped local authorities which is similar to how modern liberalism opposes anti-intellectual and small town conservatism. It created a free society with a burgeoning urban working class. At the same time, land reforms were inverted because it was understood that the pursuit of equality before was leading to the enabling of oppressive folk community common sense. In fact, agrarian workers were being constantly oppressed, so a change in policy was needed to liberate the people. On top of this, Progressive Presidents Taft and Wilson supported the liberal establishment against the revolutionaries. The revolution took on a very nationalist and conservative character because of this political backdrop, subverting the original radical intentions (although some might say that radicalism innately contains conservative elements due to how its socially democratic, egalitarian, working class focus is only semantically different from anti-elitist folk community common sense that believes in work ethic). Regardless, we should remember that liberalism and radicalism are not the same ideology. Liberals do not oppose the existence of capitalism, but rather merely seek to regulate it. The bottomline here is the origin of Mexican immigration into the U.S. took place at the same time that the corrupt IRP came into power which usurped the liberal political establishment. From beginning to end, liberals should oppose illegal immigration this corruption of social programs should be reformed, not appeased.
American Liberals Are on the Wrong Side of Mexican Illegal Immigration

Liberals do not merely believe in freedom. They also believe in social programs as a way to balance out capitalist inequality, and the oppression which happens in Mexico is due to those social programs failing. By tolerating illegal immigration, liberals are compromising on their position towards social programs. If you want to talk about history, you should understand that liberals believe in the same ideology that was used to oppress Mexico in the first place as well: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... From the beginning, slaveholders inhabited Mexican Texas while believing in the Protestant Work Ethic. This was the excuse used to rationalize slavery - that Africans and Native Americans obviously hadn't performed sufficient good works to represent a predestined calling, so it was our entitlement to treat them as chattel. Catholic Mexico, in contrast, has illegalized slavery because Catholics believe that humanity is universally graceful ever since Jesus died for our sins, and that when grace is accepted, it leads to the mysterious performance of good works such that nobody's entitled to judge anyone else's performance thereof. Texan independence was rationalized by this ideological conflict. Furthermore, the pursuit of "manifest destiny" that rationalized the Mexican-American war came about from this ideological conflict. When individuals didn't prove they had performed sufficient good works to represent a predestined calling in their local communities, they became outcast. In turn, they still needed somewhere to live, so they would pioneer westward. One way or another, liberals shouldn't support illegal immigration. It contradicts their deeper ideological commitment. They should primarily care about liberal beliefs being upheld in Mexico, not allowing non-liberals to escape liberal governments.
American Liberals Are on the Wrong Side of Mexican Illegal Immigration

What does Mexican political party have to do with Liberal philosophies? We believe in Freedom! If anyone feels that they are truly oppressed by the U.S. government they should have the right to leave this country. Likewise, if any Mexicans feel like they are oppressed by the Mexican politicians they should have the right to leave their country. OOOOHHHH right... they are illegal immigrants!!! Well, it is very hypocritical of us to define who are the "illegals" in this country. We came here unannounced, killed, raped, and murdered, thousands of natives and stole land from Mexico and then we call the them the immigrants?