BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

You stated that, " a person would make that decision based on what they think will be more enjoyable for them..." which I agree with, humans make decisions everyday depending on pain and pleasure. Enjoyable and an increase in pleasure have the same effects. I don't understand what you mean by a class can't be a right or wrong choice since right and wrong are two different classes and different actions go in each separate class. Every action leads to a chain of causes and effects which has a part in our everyday lives. David Hume shows us this in On Suicide where he states that life and death depends on a chain of events. You claim that there can be a number of possible decisions that can be made after the initial event occurred which can trigger the moral consequence; however the possible decisions only had to be made since the initial event occurred. All decisions are connected to pain and pleasure which leads to moral consequences. By promoting pleasure there will be a higher moral consequence. Jainism works on this idea. Every creature feels pain and so there should be consideration for every creature. So the motive behind Jainism is to promote pleasure which at the end has a possible moral in the community and environment.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

Not everything has a moral consequence.As i mentioned before, picking between two classes does not have a moral effect. A person would make that decision based on what they think will be more enjoyable for them like what the Hedonistic Calculus teaches. A class can't be a right or wrong choice, just as many other things such as what phone you buy or a meal choice. Everyday we make small and possibly unimportant decisions that we don't consider decisions because there is not major consequence for them. These decisions are made by preference and nothing more. It is possible for there to be no morally correct or wrong choice in some situations. Even if a chain reaction occurs, there is no way to prove that the "initial" decision is what caused the moral consequence. There were a number of decisions and actions that occurred after it that could possibly be the decision that actually had moral effects. Pain and pleasure are not necessarily connected to morality. A moral decision is made by selecting what is best for everyone but there are situations where no one else is affected. Some decisions don't have any long term effects or even a short term one worth noticing.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

I disagree with your point, every human action leads to moral consequences. Pain and pleasure does in fact deal with morality since the definition of morality being used is that it is a set of rules or prohibitions dictating what is or isn't permissible in term of harm. Harm is connected to pain and pleasure. Each action might not be directly right or wrong in moral however it will have a cause and effect reaction which will eventually lead to a morality change. You claim that people won't perform the morally right decision, I agree with this point. I never said that they will pick the correct the decision, I simply stated that there will be moral consequences for their actions. You also claimed that people make a bulk of their decisions on the pain and pleasure that they will think will come from it, which I agree and helps my point. Pain and pleasure influences the decisions being made whether the outcome is in their favor or not. Experience helps humans make decisions and the decision is affected by pain and pleasure. Restating what I said in round one not all consequences are short term, some of the effects will appear after sometime after the decision was made, or might even trigger a chain of events which will have moral consequences.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

It is very possible for human decision to not have any moral consequences. Not everything is related to morals. It may influence a bulk of our decisions but sometimes people make decisions based on the pleasure or pain that they believe will result from it. Pain and pleasure don"t necessarily indicate a moral consequence. And just because something is morally correct does not mean that it will be a decision that people choose. The Hedonistic Calculus shows the process for weighing out the pain versus the pleasure in the consequences of a decision. Morality is not the main consideration in the process because it is not a factor in every decision to be made. There are decisions that have no right or wrong conclusion but instead are geared towards the pleasure or pain the person gets from it, such as what class to take. This decision could be made based upon which experience the person believes would result in more pleasure or less pain. It is possible for human actions to have no moral consequence by: 1)People make decisions based on the amount of pleasure or pain they think they will receive. 2)Pain and pleasure are not necessarily connected to morals. 3)The Hedonistic Calculus shows the process on making decisions based on the pain and pleasure. 4)Morality is not the main focus because it is not present in every case. 5)If morality isn"t present in every case then not every decision will have a moral consequence.
Religion cannot be a valid argument in debates.

My opponent did not respond...so I'll just restate my main point. My opponent argues that blind faith should not be allowed in debate. I have shown that blind faith, the assumption of certain, unquestionable premises, is key to all types of thinking. Thus, it is a key part of all debate, everything is built from blind faith. My opponent failed to disprove this in his last response because he misread the dictionary definition and it ended up in my favor.
Religion cannot be a valid argument in debates.

"A very quick search on Dictionary.com leads me to a definition for blind faith: "belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination." I believe that the lack of perception eliminates logic from blind faith." I'm sure that since you've said you agree to some extent, you know how my argument is going to play out. But I'll explain in depth for those who are watching the debate. The definition you provided would eliminate logic from blind faith, if one word was omitted. The definition states "belief without TRUE understanding..." I'm sure you can say that logic develops from perception, but can you argue that what we perceive in and of itself is true? Various philosophers have positions saying that what we perceive is but an illusion. In fact, that's the basis of the movie "The Matrix". Thus, this supports and heavily strengthens my point that logic is also supported by blind faith. You will forgive me for not responding to the latter set of definitions because it is a set of two separate definitions. Joining them together in a phrase changes the definition, I'm sure you understand. "The only other point that I disagree with you is in the last paragraph. You compare the maxims of religion to the opinions and morals of everyday society. But unlike maxims, opinions are subject to change, often when new information is produced or even if one enters a debate. One should keep an open mind while rebutting, the very principle of which goes against religion and blind faith." The fact that a principle does not change does not mean it is correct. "Maxims" are simply unchanging principles that we designate as undeniably true. They are subject to change just as the opinions you describe, it's just that the "new information" has not yet arrived. How would your ideas change if you regained consciousness and found yourself plugged to a giant computer in a post apocalyptic world, discovering that the life you were leading was just a lie? The ideas we base logic on are just the strongest, most POSSIBLE ones to act as foundation, because they are readily available. The concept of contradiction itself was based on perception through a pair of eyes and a brain, and it is probably not wise to suggest these biological tools are unerring. No matter how you look at it, the foundations of logical proof are STILL notions we take to be true in and of themselves. This is blind faith.
Religion cannot be a valid argument in debates.

I agree with you up until the point where you begin to state that logic and reasoning is a by-product of blind faith. A very quick search on Dictionary.com leads me to a definition for blind faith: "belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination." I believe that the lack of perception eliminates logic from blind faith. A more in depth search in Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition produces two seperate but enlightening definitions. Blind: "not able or willing to notice, understand or judge." Faith: "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." And not requiring proof or evidence obliterates reasoning in blind faith. The only other point that I disagree with you is in the last paragraph. You compare the maxims of religion to the opinions and morals of everyday society. But unlike maxims, opinions are subject to change, often when new information is produced or even if one enters a debate. One should keep an open mind while rebutting, the very principle of which goes against religion and blind faith.
Religion cannot be a valid argument in debates.

Atheist here. Or rather, an Agnostic. I've come to the conclusion that Religion cannot be disproved on the grounds that it and logic branch off at the same root. Having been an atheist and a very ardent critic of Religion and people who try to validate it, I've come upon something very peculiar. What we know as logic and reasoning is also the byproduct of blind faith. It's just that this type of faith is so rooted in our consciousness that we tend not to question it, or find the act of questioning it absurd, ridiculous. Thus, blind faith in general is not only valid in debates. It is vital. We all have to take certain things as axioms in order to structure an argument. This is no different from religion.
Religion cannot be a valid argument in debates.

I am not saying that religion is a bad thing. On the contrary, it has inspired millions in both good and bad ways. But we're not here to argue about religion's effects. We're here to argue if you can or can't make a position based on blind faith. I'm taking for granted in this debate that in religion there is always some blind faith (Even scientists do not have all of the answers). The reasons that faith cannot be argued are: 1) You will never, NEVER be able to persuade someone running on blind faith. 2) Complete blind faith allows no questions to be asked, and therefore there is always only one widely accepted opinion in a religion. 3)There are so many different, diverse religions that to use a religious argument would be rude unless you were two people of the same faith, and in that case, you begin to argue your religion more than the actual debate. I look forward to debating this. Good luck to the contender!
The Abortion Debate

Today"s amazing technology allows us to freeze zygotes for later use. Imagine you are in a hospital. Left of you, You see a freezer with 10 frozen zygotes. You know this. On your right, You see a single baby that you don"t know. You know the hospital will soon explode and you can save only one: the freezer or the baby. Instinctively, You will save the baby, But using the logic that life begins at conception and a zygote is the product of conception, You just chose one life over ten. The news would be reporting you as a hero, But in your reality, You would have just saved one life instead of ten. Why? I argue because, In reality, You believe that the baby is an actual, Fully developed life, But the zygotes were just potential lives or not fully developed lives, Not equal to a fully formed baby. Also, Many pro-life scary stories that often go around are mostly myths like abortion leads to depression and suicide, Abortion causes cancer, Abortion reduces fertility, Abortions are very dangerous surgical procedures, When the majority of abortions happen (91. 5% of abortions were performed at X04;13 weeks" gestation according to the CDC), The fetus can feel pain (fetus starts feeling pain only after around 26 weeks and states can ban abortion after 24 weeks), And finally: reducing access to abortion decreases demand for abortion. This is simply untrue and all of the myths are quite simply disproven in this great article by scientist David Robert Grimes: https://www. Theguardian. Com/science/blog/2015/aug/12/five-main-anti-abortion-arguments-examined CDC Statistic: https://www. Cdc. Gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index. Htm In fact, The same article states that "A 2012 Lancet study found that regions with restricted abortion access have higher rates [of abortions] than more liberal areas, And restricted regions had a much higher incidence of unsafe abortion. " In other words, Abortions are generally very safe procedures, But when they are banned, Abortions still happen, But in unsafe conditions resulting in a more dangerous procedure. My solution to lower abortion rates to almost 0? More Planned Parenthood like health care providers that provide everything Planned Parenthood provides, Except abortions. These would offer free contraception, Education, And STD and cancer screening. An MSNBC article says that there may be a direct link between the rise in contraception use and fall in abortions, Therefore more contraception providing health care providers would most likely lower abortion rates even further. http://www. Msnbc. Com/rachel-maddow-show/contraception-helps-lower-us-abortion-rate
The Abortion Debate

I am Pro-contraception, Pro-crisis pregnancy centers, Against planned parenthood. "I will argue that a fetus isn't a fully developed life, Therefore it doesn't deserve the same rights that a fully developed life deserves. " I ask you then, If a fetus isn't a fully developed life, When does it become a fully developed life? 8 weeks? 12 weeks? 22 weeks? 28? All the way up until it is born? And before you make the viability argument, Let me say that not only is the time of viability going down as science advances, But in other countries, Viability might not come until much later in the pregnancy than it does in third world countries. Is a life more valuable here because of our technology than one in third world countries? "I believe that life is a philosophical concept, Not a scientific, Unlike pregnancy or conception. " So you're conceding that pregnancy and conception is scientific, So as far as a fetus being conceived goes, It does come down to a science? "I will argue this debate using examples and logical thinking. Mostly not scientific evidence. " :D
The Abortion Debate

This debate will be about abortion. Pro is for abortion. Con is against abortion. Abortion is the act of removing a fetus before it's born through a surgical procedure or through a pill. I am pro-contraception. I am against crisis pregnancy centers. I am pro-Planned Parenthood. I will argue that a fetus isn't a fully developed life, Therefore it doesn't deserve the same rights that a fully developed life deserves. I believe that life is a philosophical concept, Not a scientific, Unlike pregnancy or conception. I will argue this debate using examples and logical thinking, Mostly not scientific evidence.
I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin.

Its very late right now so sorry if some of my arguments are misspelled. Here we go. =) For starters my opponents arguments is as infinitely regressive as it gets. He advocates that I have a burden of proof to prove that I have a suspicion. A suspicion is as defined by dictionary. com: the state of mind or feeling of one who suspects. Thus in this case it would be my state of mind or feeling. My opponent however proposes to reject personal statements from me on what exactly my personal state of mind or feeling happens to be. This kind of argument is horrifyingly infinitely regressive as it allows any debater to simply stand up and say, "that guy is not a credible source because we're not sure what his feelings are. " The fact of the matter is, I am the number one expert on what feelings I feel. This means that my word needs to necessarily be taken as proof over everyone else's word on this issue. My opponent however attempts to offer justification for his infinitely regressive argument by stating, "I could claim that I am a psychic and have traveled through your mind and saw that you did not have these suspicions. " However there are multiple problems with this argument. 1. No proof of psychics. (note: there is proof of emotions) 2. My opponent would then have to show himself to be psychic in someway. 3. My opponent would have to show that he knows who I am outside of debate. org in order to travel through my mind. 4. Have fulfilled the above 3 my opponent could claim that I did not have a suspicion and would be seen as possibly and equal source as me on this matter. But until he can do the above 3 he fails. Next my opponent argues a burden of proof that doesn't exist. Burdens of proof exist to back up statements one makes in a debate round, I have made the statement that I have a suspicion, and backed it up with the most credible expert on this idea. I have already fulfilled my burden of proof, my opponent however argues that somehow I need to have more of a burden of proof yet he brings absolutely 0 proof for his new argument. Each new challanged argument must be substantiated in some way with a burden of proof yet my opponent has shown absolutely no reason why I need more proof than I already have. My opponent has successfully failed to meet his own burden of proof to substantiate his own arguments. Finally I have the ability to show where my suspicion stems from: . http://www.debate.org... In the comment section of this debate Kleptin quite clearly states, "Atwinraven is one of my other accounts. " Your move.
I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin.

Then, I ask the voters to vote on who made the better arguments. As comments below indicate, there is confusion as to what the actual topic of debate is. Now a look at the challenge page (. http://www.debate.org...) shows that the bold heading at the top of this debate page is supposed to be the "topic of debate". Thus, in this debate (since Pro did not clarify the topic in the comment section when asked to), Con must assume that "I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin" is the topic of debate unless Pro's Round 1 argument further clarifies/redefines the topic, such as to the debate being about whether the suspicions are correct. A look at Pro's round one argument (which I will analyze later) shows no changing/redefining of the topic. As none of this clarifying/redefining occurs in Pro's round one argument, the topic of debate must be "I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin" and therefore Con must negate that Pro unquestionably has this suspicion. I now remind the voters that any changing of the topic later in the debate by Pro is shifting advocacy and is unfair and illegal for Pro to do. Now to analyze Pro's round one statements: "My suspicion is great. My suspicion is very strong. " Unfortunately for Pro, this does not meet his burden of proof. burden of proof- a rule indicating that the affirmative has the responsibility to establish the validity of the claim made by the resolution; the resolution is presumed invalid until the affirmative establishes otherwise . http://www.geocities.com... Dictionary. com defines the proof that Pro is burdened with as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" (. http://dictionary.reference.com......). Your statements provide no valid evidence that you have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin. Statements about your personal life in a debate that concerns the validity of your personal life cannot be considered valid. Similarly, I could claim that I am a psychic and have traveled through your mind and saw that you did not have these suspicions. Voters would have to take both of these statements at "face value". In order for my opponent to win, he must post conclusive, valid evidence that he indeed has the suspicions that he claims to have. Otherwise, he automatically loses as he does not fulfill his burden. "I would like to point out that should no one challenge my suspicion then it will be seen as true. " I am sorry, but this is simply incorrect. No matter how much the debaters on this website respect you, no one challenging on you on this topic will not make it true in the eyes of every debater on this website. In addition, this does not fulfill your burden of proof and is in fact irrelevant as to whether your suspicions exist. Furthermore, this is moot as I have challenged you. My one question that I request you answer is "What is this supposed suspicion based on? "
Existence of Human Freewill

Pro states that it is logical to assume freewill, however since the majority of this argument is Ad Populous it has limited credibility. Also to clarify; I am not arguing that people don’t think that they have freewill, but that the freewill they perceive is an illusion. A Chain of Reactions Pro misconstrues morality to be equal to free will. With Pro’s example of killing a human being free will addresses if you actually had control of your actions whereas morality addresses if it was just according to philosophy. Thus, Pro’s point that “you can’t use science to prove morality” is deemed irrelevant. Pro suggests that I claim “if random things occur in nature, then our actions are also random”, this is either a strawman argument or a misunderstanding. I make no such claim, but assert the concept that every action is caused by a previous reaction. My inclusion of details on Indeterminism was to address objections that come about from the study of quantum physics. Since the freewill applications of indeterminism are unnecessary for my argument to remain logical I will elaborate no further on quantum physics for clarity’s sake. I would like to note that this is not a concession but an attempt to make this debate more accessible. Pro then states “If we are all a result of random processes and have no choice in the matter, we would all develop the same moral principles.” Again morality is not equal to freewill. Humans come into existence in very different environments and with different genetic code, two things humans don’t perceive to have control over, so it is an irrational assumption that humans would end up being identical if there was no freewill. Paradigms and Other Influences Pro has taken my points out of context and consequently missed my argument entirely. Here is what Pro claims: “Con even admits that free will is "limited", not negated altogether in his argument, then contradicts himself by saying we are left with no free will. He has not adequately proven that we don't have free will. Saying we have "some" free will is different from saying we have "no" free will.” And now here is the passage Pro is referencing: “Since exposure alters our actions, it consequently limits our free will. … Since there are an infinitive number of things that we are exposed to, we are again left with no freewill.” It is clear that Pro’s objections are irrelevant and thus the argument stands. To Summarize… The Scientific Argument: A. The way humans process thought must be within the laws of physics B. The laws of physics require every action to have a cause, to quote pro “non-being cannot produce being” C. Since the matter inside humans does not have freewill, humans cannot have freewill The Social Argument: A. Exposure to the environment alters our behavior B. Since our behavior is altered, the number of courses of action we can choose from is reduced, by definition limiting our freewill C. There are infinitive ways our behavior is altered, thus were are left with no freewill Thanks again, I wait my opponent’s response.