BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the end justifies the means in this hypothetical

"Truth may be relative in some sense though in some sense it's not, but it's not arbitrary."What you conclude here seems to contradict the very meaning of proportionalism. Proportionalist theories say that it is never right to go against a principle unless a proportionate reason would justify it.(1) However, how can you define what a proportionate reason is, if not arbitrarily? By definition, an arbitrary action is one based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.(2) If you take each case as their own, as you say you do, is that not arbitrary? By becoming an arbitrator, you subject your hypothetical subordinates to your own internal bias."...but personally I would say a healthy person with organs is worth even a hundred other people.""In my scenario, the pros and cons were obvious, in your case not so much."Yet again, you have two conflicting statements of reasoning. First you state that yes, my example would be acceptable according to your personal beliefs on proportionalism. Then, you say that the pros and cons of my example were not so obvious. If you say that a healthy person with organs is worth killing in order to save the others, then the pros must certainly be obvious? This leads me to believe that you have little regard for the means if the ends are good, even if you say you practice proportionalism.Why the Means Doesn't Justify the EndsThe principle argument behind my reason as to why this specific situation would be wrong is the fact that you cannot disregard the individual liberty of the one in order to save the five. It would be different if the terminally ill person had consented to be killed to save the rest, however, your hypothetical situation says that you must make a conscious effort to divert the track and end the life of the cancer patient without their knowledge or consent. By removing consent, you effectively become a murderer - something which is considered immoral most societies in the world.Although your hypothetical situation does not state as to how the five came to be tied to the tracks, one may assume that they 1) knew the risks of the railroad track, and 2) involved themselves in business which they may face harsh consequences. In this case, it seems as entirely immoral to murder and involve an outside figure in order to arbitrarily save the five when the five may have been the ones that caused the entire situation in the first place. Sources:1) http://en.wikipedia.org...2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
the end justifies the means in this hypothetical

All you have done is show that there are times when whether the ends justifes the means, is not so clear. i showed what i believe is a clear example. i am a "proportionalist" instead of a deontologist, so i to take each case on its own... but personally i would say a healthy person with organs is worth even a hundred other people. you may argue there's a slippery slope created with my methods, and i wont deny it. but i will say that there probably does exist a truth, it's just not always easy to tell which it is. truth may be relative in some sense though in some sense it's not, but it's not arbitrary. in my scenaio, the pros and cons were obvioius, in your case not so much. that's all you've shown. you haent shown how proportionalism is wrong or how the ends don't justify the means in that situation i provided.
the end justifies the means in this hypothetical

While there are overwhelming favorable interests, I disagree with the assumption that the means does justify the ends. I'll propose another example, similar to yours. Suppose you're a doctor and there's been a terrible construction accident, leaving five people in desperate need of vital organs. Suppose you've got a normal, relatively healthy, 75 year-old person in the room next door whom you could easily subdue with the hypothetical pull of a lever. By taking the life of the healthy person, you'd be able to distribute his organs in order to save the five. Would this justifiable, according to your own reasoning of proportionalism? Since the need of five outweigh the need of a single person who has already lived a long amount of time, would it be fair to promptly end the life of the 75 year-old?
the end justifies the means in this hypothetical

a train is hurting out of control at five people tied to the tracks. if you pull a lever, the train will be diverted to a track with one person, someone with highly developed cancer and two weeks left to live. there appears to be no other way to stop the train in time... your only choice is to pull the lever or not. five lives trumps one life who will end in two weeks. proportionalism.... the ends justify the means here, because of the overwhelming favorable interests involved v small negative interests.
god, if he exists has no morals

Warrants PRO, they're useful for winning. Okay, his arguments then mine. PRO argues that because everything is determined by the laws of the physical world, God cannot judge us for doing wrong, as we don't have free will. Previously I showed that the mind, the entity that controls our actions is nonphysical. If you imagine a cake, there are no atoms that make up that cake, but it is there, in your mind's eye. The entities of the mind are not physical, and are free from determinism of the physical world. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to prove the existence of determinism. He simply says the laws of nature force everything to be determined, and this simply is not true. I showed how the mind is free from physical laws, my point stands, and his determinism argument fails. My case: First he says God is not sapient. But earlier he said that God is omnipotent, doesn't an omnipotent being have to be sapient? God is clearly sapient. "this means that there is nothing in the universe that isnt [sic] affected by previous occurences [sic]. " While this may be true, it doesn't mean everything is determined by previous occurrences. That is where your argument fails.
god, if he exists has no morals

ok, i will first addres my opponents first argument. yes, your right about morals having nothing to do with what i said but God is not a sapient being. He makes no judgement because of Determinism. the mind is physical like everything eles, it is composed of atoms and is affected by matter like all other objects in the universe. thoughts and ideas are caused by matter and energy organized in a specific way in the brain, like everything else. this means that there is nothing in the universe that isnt affected by previous occurences. my point is, that if the universe is matter and energy obeying the forces then its like a complicated pool table. and no matter how complicated things get, there is still a cause and effect. this means that there is no free will because everything that everybody does is for a reason, so a god that knows all of these reasons cannot judge anyone for their "choices"
god, if he exists has no morals

"if god is and omnipotent being, then he cant possibly have morals because he would know that the universe dosent exist to acomidate humans and thire daily lives.[sic]" Morals have no bearing on whether the Universe exists to accommodate humans or not. The relevant point is that morals are objective ethical truths that in order to be considered good, all sapient beings must follow. God, by being omnipotent is certainly sapient (and more). He has to follow morals to be good. "how can a being that knows everything look down upon us and jugde us for right and wrong when he would obviouly see existance through determinism." Now, he advocates determinism. This doesn't work for two reasons, a) he has to prove determinism, and b) there is free will, which nullifies determinism. Determinism is usually supported by saying that the laws of physics affect everything, and determine everything. That means that determinism only affects physical things. That means it does not affect the mind, as the mind is not physical, the mind is a separate entity, although it is assisted by the brain. For example, imagine a cake, the cake does not physically exist, but it does mentally. That proves that the mind is separate and not governed by the laws of physics. As the mind controls the body, the body's conscious actions are not predetermined. That means we can do good and bad with our bodies and with our minds. "this being would know that every feeling, emotion and action of an individual is determined by an unbroken chain of prior occerances, meaning that everybody does what they do for a reason. so how can he blame them?" See above, I disproved determinism. Quod erat demonstrandum
god, if he exists has no morals

if god is and omnipotent being, then he cant possibly have morals because he would know that the universe dosent exist to acomidate humans and thire daily lives. how can a being that knows everything look down upon us and jugde us for right and wrong when he would obviouly see existance through determinism. this being would know that every feeling, emotion and action of an individual is determined by an unbroken chain of prior occerances, meaning that everybody does what they do for a reason. so how can he blame them?
Dead babies should become a form of currency.

Actually, if it weren't for slavery, the civil war wouldn't have happened. 1." Inflation will not occur due to the 9 month pregnancy period that will make generating babies a slow one and of course the corpse will rot away, this means for any large scale storage of currency, people will have to use banks with industrial freezers. Such freezers would be too expensive for the ordinary person to own on a large scale, meaning various black markets, such as drug rings will not be able to store large sums of this currency and will be forced to use banks, allowing for easy identification by local authorities. This is called "The no more money under mattress effect" and will also help circulate wealth." Not true. If the black markets are making enough money from drugged people, they will always have enough money to afford those freezers. Not to mention the freezers are adding unnecessary taxes to the economy, which would actually make a MUCH larger government. 2. "It will also encourage men and women to come together and procreate, strengthening social bonds thus leading to more sex overall. While it's true that a large portion of the newborn population will be culled for currency, the maternal instincts of mothers and the increased rate at which they are now giving birth, will ensure the mothers desire to keep some of their babies and in turn, will increase the population. This will also allow for defects to be removed from the gene pool." It would also lead to more raping and abuse, when a man wants money. If the babies are money, they won't want to keep them and rather, get rich. 3. "I urge my opponent to stop being so closed minded and consider the possibilities of accepting change." I'm not being close minded, I'm just pointing out that this is the most unethical way of doing things.
Dead babies should become a form of currency.

Con seems to believe I advocate slavery, I do not advocate slavery. I have only pointed out that slavery has had a permanent positive effect on mankind, such as the construction of wonders. While only resulting in a short term negative effect, being the low quality lives of the slaves involved.The same would be true for using dead babies as currency, the truth is, babies have not reached the stage known as person-hood, where they develop neurological functions that allow them to be biologically classified as a person. Such neurological functions include a distinct personality, the ability to reason or use logic and the ability to empathise with other human beings in any manner.Due to not having met person-hood, one can declare babies to be non-people and therefore a disposable resource to either, be use for creating a person, or to be used as currency in order to stimulate the economy and attempt to close the societal difference between the lower and middle class.Obviously the premise behind using dead babies rather than money, is because this will take financial power away from large government and give it to the people, due to the people generating the currency. The truth is, money is worthless and could be replaced with anything, the one common and sustainable thing that people can create, is babies. Inflation will not occur due to the 9 month pregnancy period that will make generating babies a slow one and of course the corpse will rot away, this means for any large scale storage of currency, people will have to use banks with industrial freezers. Such freezers would be too expensive for the ordinary person to own on a large scale, meaning various black markets, such as drug rings will not be able to store large sums of this currency and will be forced to use banks, allowing for easy identification by local authorities. This is called "The no more money under mattress effect" and will also help circulate wealth.It will also encourage men and women to come together and procreate, strengthening social bonds thus leading to more sex overall. While it's true that a large portion of the newborn population will be culled for currency, the maternal instincts of mothers and the increased rate at which they are now giving birth, will ensure the mothers desire to keep some of their babies and in turn, will increase the population. This will also allow for defects to be removed from the gene pool. I urge my opponent to stop being so closed minded and consider the possibilities of accepting change.Djksp has been banned from voting due to being a vote spammer
Dead babies should become a form of currency.

1. "Humans have been used as currency for 1,000s of years." First of all, that doesn't mean it's good, second of all, LIVE HUMANS, who in most cases are partially or fully matured. 2. "Slavery while regarded morally inhumane, has yeilded many wonders and constructs of today." Well, if they were going to yeild many "wonders", as you say, couldn't people at least be ethical and pay their workers? 3. "Where legally permitted, mothers kill babies all over the world." Yeah sure, they kill their babies for money. And if you think that they don't think twice, I feel sorry for you. OF COURSE THEY THINK TWICE. Would you just kill your baby without thinking?! That would make you very stupid and unethical. Women most likely do abortion because they have been raped or sexually horrassed. They don't just kill their babies because they feel like it. I'm sorry if as a man you can't understand that. "Only good looking babies would survive." Really, can you hear yourself? That's discrimination, and unethical. The majority of the worlds babies don't actually survive birth, and then you add that to killing babies which are poor looking??? That's about 90% of the world you're taking away buddy. My points still stand: Mass extinction, savage whites.
Dead babies should become a form of currency.

Humans have been used as a form of currency for 1000s of years, even still to this day they're used in the form of slaves. Slavery, while regarded as morally inhumane, has yielded many wonders and constructs of today, such as America. Such wonders would otherwise not have been made and have made life easier for everyone. Due to aiding the construction of America, one can say that slavery has aided the well being of man kind and millions of people. Thus slavery is good in some context. This brings me to my next point. Considering there, as demonstrated above, is a context where slavery yields positive results, is it unreasonable to assume that dead babies can yield positive results? Let's look into that. Where legally permitted, mothers commit abortions all over the world as if they're having their morning coffee, they don't think twice about killing a baby and see abortion as morally ethical. It's also a statistical fact that women kill more babies than men through their infanticide violence. [A] Considering women are the biggest killers of children in the known world, how is it that a woman stands before me today, defiantly and so self righteously telling me that I can't use a babies corpse as currency? Wouldn't that seem almost, hypocritical? I would urge my opponent to cease THEIR statistical violent tendencies, before criticising mine. Using babies as currency would allow for us to take a eugenics approach to reproduction. One can now trade any babies with poor traits, leaving only the most healthy and beautiful babies to survive. This would mean children whom do survive, are good looking and live happy and healthy lives. I would ask my opponent, why are you denying babies their right to a healthy and happy life? Are you morally coherent? I expect my opponent to touch upon all points and answer all questions or else my opponent must forfeit in typical female fashion. [A] https://www.childtrends.org...
Dead babies should become a form of currency.

Masterful, you are a racist fool, like it or not. It's inhumane to kill babies and not to mention disgusting. However since I'm debating on the stupidest thing ever, I will address your idea. Using dead babies as currency would result in extinction. You'd be killing babies who'd be the next generation, and then there would be nobody to create more babies, thus leading to mass extinction. As I've said before what about the savage whites? You are the most racist freak ever. It is not economically stimulating as there would be no economy to be stimulated.
Dead babies should become a form of currency.

I propose before you today, that we should begin using dead babies as a form of currency. Dead babies would make a good form of currency due to the fact that a babies corpse would eventually rot. This would encourage spending and thus stimulate the economy, creating new business opportunities and increasing employment. Babies are renewable and can be made by anyone, which in turn, would create equality of wealth among the currently divided social classes. One may also wish to use this as an opportunity to enact ethnic purging, which is normally desirable, less one desires marauding bands of black men raping and pillaging the local white neighborhoods. White babies would be worth the least amount, while African and Muslim babies would fetch a hefty price. This means more people would be killing black and Muslim babies, thus reducing their populations. Due to their population being reduced, we would experience various societal changes such as, lower crimes rates, lower poverty rates and cleaner air. As you can see using dead babies as a form of currency is not only economically stimulating, but allows us to push other, more malicious agendas in an attempt to end barbarism and savagery. Nigg on my friends.
California's High Speed Rail: Other states should wait.

You express that their is a likelihood of the Rail Project failing. Instead of allowing for other states to also experience failure, which would bolster not hurt the case fossil fuel companies make, states should instead direct their attention to Elon Musk's hyperloop idea. It is also a fast and energy sufficient mode of transportation. We are very lucky to have a man with a Silicon Valley CEO way of thinking trying to find new ways to make us energy dependent.
California's High Speed Rail: Other states should wait.

California's High Speed Rail is an attempt to keep the damage inflicted upon the environment to a minimum. The Authority behind the plans for this project are aiming to have the project use energy from only sustainable resources. Needless to say, it is far from finished, and other states should not wait until the rail is finished before they begin working on similar projects. Because if they do, then the time that would have went to the states doing their own research will be wasted on spectating another state's endeavors.
ISIS will capture Baghdad

Thanks for the debate Kylar. :)Since Kylar has now sourced his assertions, they are credible. But, as stated in the last round, "even if they were sourced, they do not provide a deductive link." This is because the facts only provide a strong inductive link. Kylar's argument is that ISIS is well-armed, and has a stronger military than Iraq. But, does this mean that they will definitely capture Baghdad? I think not. This is only inductive proof. An inductive proof is "is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion."(1) This would only suit a resolution worded like so "Is it likely that ISIS will capture Baghdad?"Hence, Kylar's argument only shows that the conclusion will 'most likely happen'. But, under this resolution, an induction will not suffice. Kylar did not dispute what his BoP was in the first round, which was that a deduction would be necessary. A deduction is "is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion"(2) viz. the conclusion can never be false. Kylar's argument is only inductive, as ISIS does not have to capture Baghdad; they can simply retreat if they want to, make peace etc. However, this might not be the likely rendition. The point is, a deduction has not been shown.As a deduction has not been shown -- Pro has not fulfilled his BoP. Thanks for the debate.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
ISIS will capture Baghdad

http://www.dailymail.co.uk... here is a source for you :) You can see here ISIS is very well-armed as well. They are gaining moentum acr5oss Iraq http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.cnn.com... You can see ISIS is pushing deeper. The Iraq military is weakened, they will fall. Their morale is low, and Baghdad is close to ISIS. I believe this shows ISIS will take Baghdad. Thanks for the debate :)
ISIS will capture Baghdad

I thank my friend for our debate first of all :) My opening arguments are as follows ISIS has seized control of a large swath of territory in Iraq and Syria. Airstrikes have pushed them from Tikirt and Kobane but they are not broken just yet. The ISIS group has seized control of Ramadi, a vital town 60 miles from Baghdad. They have conquered Fajullah, 45 miles from Baghdad and are on the march. In Syria they have seized Palmyra, effectively controlling 1/2 of the war torn Syrian Arab Republic. ISIS is on the march towards Baghdad. Airstrikes will not be enough to slow down their advance and assault on the Iraqi capital city. Over to con, good luck