BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist

Wow Pro, that was . . . interesting. I’ve never seen someone try to turn a logical argument into a Rube Goldberg Machine before (if A equals C and D is removed from F then (e)q knocks over the dominos P through W which sends h(C) airborne and, simultaneously, lights T on fire rocketing “sufficient reason” into the logical nightmare of . . . etc.) While I appreciate the effort that went into creating such a monster you really could have boiled the whole thing down to a single sentence: Everything that someone desires is subjective and thus conditional. Of course, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it’s demonstrably false Just because some desires something does not mean that it is subjective and thus conditional. For example, I desire to breath. This, however, is not subjective nor is it conditional. It is based upon the physical reality of my biology. I have to do it. I don’t have a choice. I can try to hold my breath but my subconscious will override my conscious mind. I can chain myself to the bottom of my pool but my body will eventually breath in water even though my mind tells it not to. Breathing is an unconditional ought. The only way I can stop breathing is when I am physically unable to do so. And this directly ties into my argument for human well being. Cognitive Empathy and Theory of Mind are neurologically etched into our minds. It is the result of millions of years of evolution as a social species. This should come as a surprise to no one. Societies that work together survive. Societies that don’t work together don’t survive. Human well being is encoded in our DNA. It is the instinct from which all our moral systems are derived. Cognitive Empathy and Theory of Mind are a reality and have been shown exist psychologically, sociologically, and neurologically. And if just one person exercised human well being just one time because of Cognitive Empathy then Pros argument that it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist - fails. We all do this every day. Often without the need to think about it. Things that cause human well being are considered good. Things that cause human harm are considered bad. Not everyone always agrees on what the best way to affect human well being is. But none the less, its pursuit is a categorical imperativeSome religions make claims otherwise. That the will of their deity is "moral." It is theoretically possible that a deity could make moral claims. But those claims would only be moral if they were in line with human well being. To add another party to the system does not change the equation. And if the deity required actions that were in conflict with human well being those requirements would be immoral. Human well being is the metric which drives morality. And it is a metric which is knowable.
Guns should be banned

Gun laws should not be banned. What if some one broke into your house and had no protection? What if some one was treating to shoot your kids, you pull out your gun to protect them, but wait. Gun laws are banned. So now what do you do. They made a second amendment for a reason, to protect you. Why would you want to take them away? I know all the shootings ticked people off but, the gun didn't kill the people, the person behind the gun did. So don't blame the guns or the NRA for ya'll that do.
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

"You merely say that I am creating a 'diversion' excep tit isn't a diversion it is the very assertion that is my resolution."It was pretty obvious you were trying to manipulate the meaning of what you were saying. But you are right, you didn't create a diversion, because you failed."You also calim that I am rationalising 'nonsense' I find this offencive since it actually is very sensible."Awh, boohoo! You actually are trying to rationalise nonsense! There is nothing sensible about what you are saying,your resolution alone is a testament to that."The issue is that people don't find the rape okay but only to the victim of the rape was the rape truly not ok."Do you ever read what you write? First you say people are not okay with rape, then you say only rape victims are 'truly' not okay with rape. There is no amount of "not okay" that is less true than any other. Just because to a rape victim it may be a lot more traumatic, does not mean anyone else can not "truly" disapprove of rape.
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

You merely say that I am creating a 'diversion' excep tit isn't a diversion it is the very assertion that is my resolution. You also calim that I am rationalising 'nonsense' I find this offencive since it actually is very sensible. The issue is that people don't find the rape okay but only to the victim of the rape was the rape truly not ok.
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

"Let me just begin saying that rape is not good, for the victim. It also is probably not good for anyone who knows the victim after they have been raped. However there is nothing to indicate the expectations and needs of others not being met (thus it meets my definition of satisfactory, in order to be 'okay')"Let me just begin with saying that's a load of reckless unjustified language. Even with your efforts to cherry pick definitions and recontextualization the usage of okay, you still fail to justify anything you are saying or been saying. In fact, I've already told you and explained it! Nothing you have even said is worth acknowledgement, its just blatantly total rubbish! So I'm not going to explain it again.And where the funk do you get the idea there is nothing to indicate expectation and needs of others not being met? Hello anyone! Rape violates a person. Everything about rape indicates that very thing! And society's expectations OBVIOUSLY are not met by rape, why do you think there are laws in societies against rape? Do you think somebody thought rape was "satisfactory" but not good enough so now its punishable by law in societies?? "I would say that rape cannot occur without a rapist and perhaps I was wrong to separate the two."Oh, perhaps you were wrong?Wow, I would have thought you were too conceited to acknowledged even a fraction of the ignorance in your asinine statements."I think the point is that it's not good at all for the victim or those who know them, nor society. However, only the victims needs and expectations are being unfulfilled when a rape occurs."Why are you even trying to rationalize this nonsense?It is actually not just "unsatisfactory" to the person raped, its to their family, friends, and loved ones too. Do you seriously believe people tend to think, "oh, the rape was OK' when they hear about a rape?And what makes you think it has any room to be acceptable (or in the repugnant way you say it, "satisfactory") to anyone but the rapist? Regardless, all this serves is as a diversion to what has already been explained.
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

Okay: satisfactory but not especially good.[1]Satisfactory: fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.[2]Let me just begin sayign that rape is not good, for the victim. It also is probably not good for anyone who knows the victim after they have been raped. However there is nothing to indicate the expectations and needs of others not being met (thus it meets my definition of satisfactory, in order to be 'okay') I would say that rape cannot occur without a rapist and perhaps I was wrong to separate the two. However, I think the point is that it's not good at all for the victim or those who know them, nor society. However, only the vicitms needs and expectations are being unfulfilled when a rape occurs.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

Okay, nothing in your rationalization of being a bystander says anything about a rape being okay, I can see you are simply employing the fallacy of distraction:https://www.google.com.... Also you say you would have an aversion to the rape, people are not okay with things they fear. So... what are you attempting to prove?Also you don't seem to understand the definition of okay, or the implications of what you are saying here."There is nothing to suggest that the rape was not okay, only the fact that the person they know HAD A TERRIBLE THING HAPPEN TO THEM!"That is total rubbish, the "TERRIBLE THING" that happen is called RAPE! Something is not both a TERRIBLE THING and OKAY, that is contradictory like everything you are saying.When you say "essentially" rape is okay, you are saying its nature is okay, yet when you describe the nature of rape nothing about it is okay."To others the rape is barely an issue, when the girl would describe it to them they wouldn't be horrified or angry at the rape but only at the RAPISTS!"That is shockingly asinineFirst off, how do you know this? You are saying people think, "Rape is fine ...but a rapist is horrible!" But that is completely contradictory, do you know what a RAPIST is?Rapist:Someone who forces another to have sexual intercourse! What is rape? Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.What is a rapist without rape? NOT A RAPIST.What is rape with out a rapist? NOT POSSIBLE.They are not separate in anyway.Rape is an ACTION, actions do not exist unattached from actors of said action.Therefore, to say something so absurd, you would have to believe rape is not an action actually an entity.You have failed to give any valid or substantial justification for your position that rape is acceptable (yet not?) or countered any of my previous arguments.You also display the inability to comprehend that rape is an action, since you continue to accentuate that such an action is okay as long as it is not being an action. Which is why it can not be stressed enough how this entire debate is just complete bollocks.I refuse to explain this to you again.
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

Rape is forced sex (as defined by my opponent) but what I am about to reason to most humans will seem disgusting, abhorrent and immoral in every sense of the word. The issue is that if i were to walk down the street, see a rape happening, especially a gang rape with a ton of buff bodybuilders, I wouldn't think twice about walking by pretending to notice nothing, no in fact I would mos tlikely walk the other side of road and run. There are two reasons I would not bother to call the police and one reason why I wouldn't try to sotp the rape itself. As for the police, the moment the rapists heard sirens they'd just grab the girl and run (most likely a strong man could carry an already bruised and weakened woman away in time). Thus, my call would be deemed a hoax and me a crminal for wasting police time. The second reason not to call the police is that I would have to give sworn testimony in court and if someone is doing a crime as violent as rape, what kind of contacts do you think they'd have outside prison to come and kill me, or maybe my spous and/or family? Why I wouldn't try to stop it is simply because I'd probably be raped too, I consider myself a bit of a nerd, meaning o study more than I work out, this guy raping her probably works on his body a huge amount of the time to make sure he can fulfil his rape fantasies (I say his and not her because over 92% of rapes are done by males, the rest are almost all female pedophiles) if my opponent wishes to counter this then he must supply data and source it) so to avoid getting beaten up and perhaps raped myself I would stay back.So why is it okay to me (or anyone) in the scenario (NOT OUTSIDE OF THE SCENARIO) that there is a rape occuring, having occured, or about to occur. If you were to ask the parents of the girl, it would seem not okay at all, the posisble spouse and/or friends would say the same. HOWEVER There is nothing to suggest that the rape was not okay, only the fact that the person they know HAD A TERRIBLE THING HAPPEN TO THEM! Essentially, the rape is okay, in fact the entire process of the rape which occured, the forced sex, the damaging of the body and the memories it left behind are all only harmful and terrible and wrong to the victim of the rape. To others the rape is barely an issue, when the girl would describe it to them they wouldn't be horrified or angry at the rape but only at the RAPISTS! So essentially, being a rapist and harming a person is not okay, but rape itself it okay unless it's being done, having been done, or about to be done to you.
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

Okay lets examine your argument:First you assume, rape is okay.Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.Then you argue, it is only okay when it isn't okay when it isn't happening to you, hasen't happened to you, or isn't about to happen to you.But that is fallacious thinking.Firstly, other people can be, and have been raped.Second, rape is absent where it is absent, that is to say, no rape is not rape.If you are not being raped, haven't been, or are not about to be raped, there is no potential, prestent, or history of rape, therefore there is NO rape.Something that is OKAY is present, something that WAS okay happened, something that is GOING to be okay is HAPPENING.Okay only applies to a thing that is, something that isn't can't be okay. Rape can not be okay if there is NO rape at all. Finally, back to "you are not the only one"There are other people, for something to be okay, it is APPROVED.Just because you are not, have not been raped, doesn't many other people haven't or aren't. Is similarly murder okay if its not happening to you? Scenario:You have never been rapedSomeone is being raped in front of you.Based on your argument:You are not about to, have been, or being raped, therefore this rape is okay for you.
Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

Let me just explain what I mean.If you aren't being raped, you will like it no doubt. I will NOT EVER be rapist advocate. I'm just saying that it's horrible only if you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.All definitions I shall allow my opponent to decide. All must be sourced and not stupidly ridiculous.
Story Telling - Unexpectedly Talking Animals

...this happened to be the part of the woods where all the native inhabitants were unknown and mysterious, ergo the name Darkpass that the area is familiarized as. Most--if not all--of the travelling clan was trying to conceal their timid and fearful inner behavior, but they were all so desperate for a comforting friendship amidst each other that they knew it would be better to act as honest and non-concealing as they could. Samuel is the youngest. Spunky and well, they always say he is, and without him the clan of travelers wouldn't get very far. He is the best at doing math and an expert at mapping, along with Madi: the second eldest. Through the woods, however, Sam is the worst of them all in terms of decelerating and slackening. The leader, Devon, gets especially annoyed with him because he lags along. Buster Bagshot, though he is an exceptionally good looking yet short fellow, is known to be a dunce. Before the trip Samuel opened his wide pie-hole and some rather insulting words came out: that Devon would not have brought Buster along if the little guy had not been commanded to come. But such was quite frankly, true, despite the fact that it made the first part of the journey difficult to avoid arguments. Madi and Veronica are twins. They are the second oldest and the most athletic while being witty, if it is possible to put it that way. Both are natural caretakers and Veronica is genuinely coordinated. The oldest of the travelers, Devon, is extremely tough. Mentally and physically, and you can tell immediately by the look on his face and the way his muscles bulge, even under his thick suit and coat. He is the only one that has opened his mouth to talk in the past hour of the trek, but only simple remarks or questions. Only twice did anyone reply with mumbles or "amen's." Devon has remarked with "Is Samuel the only one who's a tad bit exhausted?" or, "I'm about to dump this bag of yours, Buster Bagshot, if it doesn't get any warmer out soon," or, "all I'm focused on is getting warm and getting to Newmeadow as quickly as possible. Efficiency. You get what I mean?" Of course, this was their initial goal, to get to Newmeadow (because it was there that an important meeting of their required to be at would take place), but as they knew, it would be an extremely dangerous expedition and many roadblocks, hindrance, and mishaps that could happen along the way. Already they have come across a shortage of food upon which they had to almost all of their affluence, and an injury--Buster broke his arm after falling out of a tree while attempting to gather fruit to eat due to the deficit. But the most unexpected and odd experience was yet to happen.
Story Telling - Unexpectedly Talking Animals

For this challenge, I am looking for someone to tell a story with me. The story must, at some point, include unexpectedly talking animals. There are five rounds and my opponent is encouraged to write as much or as little as he/she would like (although a longer story would be much more fun). I encourage plenty of detail, with character names, traits and back stories... It makes carrying on the story more interesting and more difficult. For an example of a similar debate/game, see here http://www.debate.org... Rules: 1) I will begin the story with a very brief introductory sentence (or maybe a few). 2) For each round following my opening, each of us is expected to pick up right where the opponent left off. 3) You are not allowed to change something that the opponent establishes. Ie. If I say that the main character has blue eyes, you cannot change that character's eyes to green. 4) The only exception to rule 3 is if you explain the change in the story. Ie. If you say the character encountered a powerful wizard that cast a spell, changing the character's eyes to green. 5) There are no restrictions on subject matter, so long as the story teller works in the necessary elements (in this case, unexpected talking animals) and carries on the story from where the opponent left off. I made this debate impossible to accept because I am looking for an opponent who is willing to put in some time and effort to make this a fun experience. Message me or leave a comment if you are interested. Voting is simply on a win/lose basis. Vote for the story teller who, in your opinion, did a better job. Forfeits will result in an automatic loss for either side. Breaking the rules will also result in an automatic loss (at the discretion of the judges). Beginning of the story: The wind was blowing through the trees, providing a simple background melody for the travellers. They had been walking for days and were thankful for the shelter that the forest offered them from the bitterly cold wind. A group of five travellers on these roads is not normally that strange a sight, however...
The individual(s) who have voted for my opponent ought not to have.

My opponent has not argued against my #3 point. While votes in the first two categories are not about who wins, they are still votes, and thus I have negated the resolution. My opponent has given no moral standard to base his claims on, and he has not defined ought in any specific sense. By some moral systems, it is moral to act selfishly and immoral to act unselfishly. Even ignoring #3, my opponent has failed to show that either beastboy838 or myself ought not have voted for beastboy838.
The individual(s) who have voted for my opponent ought not to have.

Their is a difference between being winning and being right, as so many debates on this website can tell us. This is also why I am not talking about me winning rather the morality of the votes (use of ought). 1. there are multiple opponents, not addressed this. We are debating on the morality of the decisions and because they have not conformed to the conduct of rightness, making the fair and right decision. he should have received no votes. 2. Look to intro Extend all points from PRO
The individual(s) who have voted for my opponent ought not to have.

1. beastboy838 should have voted for himself. By voting for himself, he would be making it slightly more likely that he would win or tie that debate rather than lose. 2. I should have voted for beastboy838. I have, and I should have, since it gives me a better chance to win this debate due to having an extra contention. 3. First two vote categories. Those who agreed with beastboy838 before or after the debate should have voted for him in those categories if they wished to be honest.
The individual(s) who have voted for my opponent ought not to have.

The following debate: http://www.Debate.org... My opponent and I are tied (as of the posting of this round) And due to the fact that he not only forfeited one but two rounds, never refuted a single argument, Never gave the courtsey to comment, or anything of the sort. Their is no reason he should have the amount of votes he currently has. Thank you.
Tim Tebow is better than Peyton Manning

Like I stated earlier, Peyton Manning WAS a great QB. He IS a Hall of Famer. BUT, Tim Tebow is well on his way. As a child, Peyton Manning did 200 sit- ups and 200 push- ups each night. After Tim Tebow heard about this as a young child and started doing 400 of each a night. He did twice as much work as Manning to become twice the quarterback the great Peyton is. Yes, Peyton Manning IS a better QB than Tebow is right now, ( statistic wise,) but if Tebow is given a few more seasons to shine like he did with Denver last year, he WILL become one of those great QBs such as Peyton Manning and John Elway. If he does not amount to their stature, he will be above them. In 5 years, I will come back to this debate, and laugh at you all who are doubting Tebow. Thank you for the argument.
Tim Tebow is better than Peyton Manning

Great, Tebow won a Heisman. Now he can join the long list of Heisman QBs who have done nothing in the NFL. Remember Troy Smith, Jason White, Eric Crouch, or Danny Wuerffel? No one else does either. Some great players have won the Heisman, but that achievement alone means nothing in terms of professional success - Tebow is proving that now by riding the bench every week. Peyton has 11 Pro Bowls. Tebow rarely takes 11 snaps in a game. Peyton is a first ballot hall of famer. Tebow isn't even the best QB on his team. Going into this week, Peyton is four wins behind Elway for the second-most wins by a QB EVER. Tebow is a poor season or two away from being out of the NFL entirely. Did you see what Peyton did in the second half on Monday Night? Doesn't seem like he has lost anything due to surgery and if teams of doctors have cleared him to play, I'm sure your speculation on his health is a more reliable opinion. If anything, the fact that Tebow is used as a wildcat QB and runs the ball frequently will shorten his career dramatically. So, the question is whether Tim Tebow, a QB deemed by his coach as unworthy to start ahead of the terrible Mark Sanchez, will somehow blossom to have ONE OF THE GREATEST NFL CAREERS OF ALL TIME. I doubt it and even if you believe that - Peyton is already there.