BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deontological morality is nonexistent

Pro, Your position was that "Deontological morality can't exist". You are Pro, Which means you are arguing in support of this statement. So why then do you ask, "Can you not find an easy way to argue against Deontology without disproving morality? " You are arguing against deontology by stating that it DOES NOT exist, That means my argument is that it DOES exist. I have no idea what position you hold to at this point. Another way of saying this is that you are arguing that morality is subjective, And I am saying that it is not. If you do not agree with this, Then you made the wrong argument. The initial syllogism in my post was simply me restating your position in a more organized manner in order to show how your language disagrees with your conclusion. My point in my Round 1 was that your argument which began by saying deontological morality cannot exist ended up indicating through your wording (wrong, Bigger, Smaller etc) that deontological morality (universal moral truth) does indeed exist, Or else your terms of "bigger/ smaller/violate", Do not have any sensible meaning. Respectfully, dbox
Deontological morality is nonexistent

Pro thank you for the debate, P1) It is common sense to tackle the bigger (moral) problem than the smaller (moral) problem P2) This requires the violation of a moral value (even if it is a smaller value) P3) This is morally wrong Conclusion) Objective moral standards do not exist The way pro phrases his proposition presupposes the existence of a categorical imperative (the foundation of deontological morals) or a universal moral law that places unconditional moral culpability on all moral agents. To say "defy morality" or "respect morality" indicates there is a standard to defy or respect. Again to say it is "wrong" implies a standard by which to measure the value of the action. Once more to place degrees of morality (bigger/smaller) is to imply a moral scale by which to measure the value. Finally, To say that morality has been 'violated' is to say that there was a standard. Pro may argue that the standard in view here is a personal standard which one thinks to be universal, But if it is not actually universal, Then the terms mentioned above are meaningless. If morality is subjective, Then it is up to the individual to determine if their action is moral or justified. If this is the case, Once again, The values placed in the question are arbitrary, The conclusion is assumed in the premises, And the proof is unjustifiably circular. Respectfully, dbox
Vaccinations are necessary

I am sincerely sorry for this waste of time. I wish my opponent had not accepted this debate if they could not finish it. I was looking forward to debating this topic and it was a complete waste of time. I do hope everything is alright and my opponent just forgot, but I am very disappointed. I'm sorry for this. As my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds I encourage you vote for me because of bad conduct. I will be reposting this debate and I hope someone can debate this who actually wants to, instead of forfeiting every round. Vaccinations are necessary to maintain the health of many countries. In the past few years America has seen a rise in diseases like pertussis because of people against vaccinations. It is vital for the health of our world to continue to vaccinate. Again, I also apologize for my spelling mistakes. As I said before, my computer keys were sticking and I have an older phone that I can't type well on.
Vaccinations are necessary

I would first like to apologize for any misspellings in the previous round. I am typing on an older laptop and my keys keep sticking so please bear with me. As my opponent has forfeited the previous round I would like to restate that vaccinations are 100% necessary to make sure disease like polio do not see a comeback. No matter how healthy a person is, no matter how much they take care of themselves they cannot change the strength of disease. They cannot prevent measles by eating salad, or run from hepatitis. It's the disease that decides who lives and who dies, who's sick and who's well. Do you think that every life that was taken by small pox didn't take care of themselves? Do you think that everyone who died of influenza was already sick or weak? No. Do you think that everyone who doesn't get the flu now takes care of themselves? Do you think everyone who has never been in contact with the chicken pox is healthy? No. They aren't sick because we have a vaccinations. What you may see as pointless is one of the most world changing discoveries in history. As you have forfeited the last round I would like to say I hope everything is well and you just forgot. I sincerely hope everything is well and if not I would like to say I hope it gets better. Goodnight:)
Vaccinations are necessary

I myself do not think vaccinations are necessary. Usually every time I get one I end up getting sick after. Also some may have the risk of cancer or actually do cause it. There have been many recalls on vaccines, and the people who were the first to get them were at risk for disease or were left sick. If people ate right and took care of their bodies we would not need them. Yes, there is bacteria and virus's but the healthier the person the less chance they are of getting sick.
Income inequality

The CEO is also responsible for everything that happens to that corporation. This means that stock prices, supply prices, customer satisfaction, profitability, sustainability, and competition all rest on the shoulders of the CEO (1). This is simply not true. Sure the CEO may be responsible for this but let's not forget that the Board of directors is responsible for this to as well as CFO's, COO's, CRO's, CIO's, and CLO's. To say that CEO pay has increased unfairly would imply that CEO’s do not work harder or have more responsibilities than the average worker. I've said it before and will say it again. CEO's are responsible for a lot; this doesn't mean you should make 380 times the average joe. You also have not shown that income inequality is wrong. It's wrong because the last time we've seen a gap this large was right before the great depression. Paul Krugman has called it unjust, and George Packer says as a sign of national decline. source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... # , . http://www.nytimes.com... I will post a link to the debate you copied your first round argument from. Yes I copied my argument from myself. Why should the smart and the stupid be paid equally? For your to assume that everyone in a company that is below an executive is stupid, is rude and inappropriate and you be docked for conduct. Graphic designers, Medical and public-health social workers, kindergarten teachers, Dietitians, Reporters, Respiratory therapists, and Architectural and Civil Drafters all make in the range of $40,000-$50,000 a year and all require some sort of college. But i guess these people are stupid according to my opponent. Once again, cite a source for those numbers, or your argument on that topic will remain null. I'd like to cite the graph above. If you cant see the graph go to this link . http://upload.wikimedia.org... My closing case As my closing case, I’d like to say that I’ve made a strong case why income inequality is unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong. My opponent has made moot arguments and in one case made a rebuttal up.
Income inequality

Well first I like you to excuse me for the that I didn't my sources. You are not excused, cite a source for those numbers, or your argument on that topic will remain null. So to say that simply putting in a couple extra hours entitles you the $5,960,000 more then the average joe who's probably putting in overtime is ridiculous. It is not just the hours that CEO’s put in that count. The CEO is also responsible for everything that happens to that corporation. This means that stock prices, supply prices, customer satisfaction, profitability, sustainability, and competition all rest on the shoulders of the CEO (1). The average Joe is responsible for their own work and not the daily operations of a $100 billion+ company. So while the average Joe may make much less than a CEO, the average Joe is responsible for exponentially less than a CEO. The pay of the average CEO pay since 1978 has risen 725%. That is 127 times the average workers salary who's paycheck has only raised by 5.8%. Why is this bad? To say that CEO pay has increased unfairly would imply that CEO’s do not work harder or have more responsibilities than the average worker. I have shown that CEO’s both work long hours, and are responsible for thousands of times more money than an average worker. You also have not shown that income inequality is wrong. Towards your comment to about the ratio. I was wrong to say "the past forty years". What I meant was the time from the 40s to the 80s. Once again, cite a source for those numbers, or your argument on that topic will remain null. For you say that I pulled information from another debate is rude. But you think whatever you want to. I'd like to note that when you start using cheap shots, it's a sign that don't have a rebuttal. It is not rude, nor is it a cheap shot to accuse you of taking information from another debate, I will post a link to the debate you copied your first round argument from (2). In fact, you put no effort into your first round, and you cited 2 arguments that I had never made in this debate. Not only that, but you thought I was dumb enough not to recognize this from our other debate, and you resorted to an ad hominem argument about me not having a rebuttal. Con should be docked conduct points for this! My Closing Case: Income inequality is justified because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace, and that is as it should be. That is a major tenet of a capitalistic society (3). Why should the smart and the stupid be paid equally? Why should highly efficient workers be paid the same as time wasters? My opponent is con in regards to income equality, so in a sense they are arguing that no-matter what an individual contributes to society that they should all be paid the same. Vote Pro, as I have completely torn apart con’s case! Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.debate.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Income inequality

Well first I like you to excuse me for the that I didn't my sources. To you saying my argument on CEO to worker ratio is wrong, you right.Because according to CNN money the average CEO salary is 380 times greater than workers (http://money.cnn.com...). Your right to say that CEO does more work more hours but for example if someone were to earn even minimum wage if you multiple that by 380 you get $6,000,000. But if we do that again with the average worker salary being roughly $40000 ( http://career.ucsd.edu... ) you get $15,000,000. So to say that simply putting in a couple extra hours entitles you the $5,960,000 more then the average joe who's probably putting in overtime is ridiculous. The pay of the average CEO pay since 1978 has risen 725%. That is 127 times the average workers salary who's paycheck has only raised by 5.8%. (http://thinkprogress.org...) Towards your comment to about the ratio. I was wrong to say "the past forty years". What I meant was the time from the 40s to the 80s. For you say that I pulled information from another debate is rude. But you think whatever you want to. I'd like to note that when you start using cheap shots, it's a sign that don't have a rebuttal.
Income inequality

"This statement just plain wrong, hard work can be played for without hoarding the cash for yourself. With this nation's poor being played less and less and the rich being payed more and more the current ratio of 256:1 is unacceptable and it's selfish and greedy." Your argument here is wrong for many reasons. Let"s say a minimum wage employee at McDonalds may (on a busy day) handle 2000 dollars. They will earn $8 an hour for $64 a day. That means that per hour, that employee earned (2000/8) one dollar per $250 per dollar handled. Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobile earns $5.1 Million per year. Since he is responsible for the entire company, and Exxon Mobile earned $486 billion last year. That means that Rex Tillerson earned (486,000,000/5,100,000) $1 per $95000 he was responsible for. So Rex Tillerson is responsible for much more money, however by the standard of pay based on responsibilities he is underpaid! Sources:( http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)"For forty-years the average was around 50:1. People can be rewarded without being impoverished." Did you just make this up, because you have absolutely no sources?"Also towards your other point, it's not inevitable. It can be put off by not repealing wall street regulation and reinstating legislation such as Glass-Stegall." I never made this point, and I think you simply copied this off of another debate and are putting no real effort into this debate.People like CEO"s are often very rich, but they also work very hard and are responsible for multi-billion dollar companies. CEO"s such as Jack Dorsey often put in 80 hour workweeks and are responsible for thousands of times as much as normal workers. Sources:(http://money.cnn.com...)
Income inequality

I'd like to begin by rebutting your argument that it pays for people's hard work. This statement just plain wrong, hard work can be played for without hoarding the cash for yourself. With this nation's poor being played less and less and the rich being payed more and more the current ratio of 256:1 is unacceptable and it's selfish and greedy. For forty-years the average was around 50:1. People can be rewarded without being impoverished. Also towards your other point, it's not inevitable. It can be put off by not repealing wall street regulation and reinstating legislation such as Glass-Stegall.
Gay marriage should be allowed

Oh, I misunderstood. Sorry. Anyway, as I was saying, in the movie 'splice', two scientists make a human hybrid, which turns hostile. In the movie 'A nightmare on elm street', Johnny Depp made his first ever appearance in a movie, which I believe was the start of his acting career because of his brilliant performance. In 'a nightmare on elm street: Dream warriors', Nancy returns to help the children of elm street overcome their fear of Freddy Krueger by using their 'dream powers' against him. Although Nancy dies in this film, I believe that this movie was the starting point of the kid's resilience to Freddy Krueger. I believe my argument is strong. Vote for me if you are a fan of the 'A nightmare on elm street' series. I rest my case.
Gay marriage should be allowed

thank you for helping me make my point? I said that they use surrogates because they can't bring children in the traditional giving birth way, and therefore there is a large usage of poor women from unprivileged homes that sell their body, stay pregnant for 9 months, and all of that for some money, not that much either. (that's often why they are chosen over surrogates from developed countries) And I also said that them getting married makes them crave a family of this sort more, because they feel like a stable home as any other, which they are. The problem is that they use poor women, and until we stop that usage we should not let them get married and bring children that way.
Gay marriage should be allowed

when homosexuals get married, they bring children into this world. The problem with that is that they use surrogates, usually women from 3rd world countries, who sell their bodies like prostitutes because they have nothing to eat. When given permission to marry, they do this more often because they are building a family. so not by principle, but because currently their marriages are causing so much harm to people we forget because they are poor and far from our eyes (they are often from India or places of that sort), that until we fix this epidemic of exploitation, it is best we minimize them by preventing their marriage.
Gay marriage should be allowed

Why shouldn't two people of the same sex be allowed together? I find it ironic how countries are trying to fight against homophobia, even though laws against the right for gays to marry IS being homophobic. I also find it sexist how men love to see lesbians, (because they think we're into special 'kinky' things that other couples wouldn't do, even though that's not true. We have the same sex life as straight couples) and hate seeing gay men.
Cannabis

HarmWhile there may be a link, it's not certain that everybody suddenly gets mania from using cannabis. Cannabis also has a lot of positive effects. Like I mentioned before, it never mentioned anything about how often the people use cannabis. This is also just one study, what's considered true in science and confirmed is when multiple studies point toward that direction. Con is just quoting the study and 90% of their argument is a bunch of quotes and disorganized. Gateway drugCon has failed to prove why marijuana should be illegalized and alcohol should be legal. None the less, the gateway drug theory is flawed. Researchers are in fact using marijuana to help people like crack addicts to cut down on their use of crack cocaine. There are millions of people whom has used marijuana in their life, yet why aren't there so many meth and heroin users? The idea that using cannabis leads to harder drugs is called the "Gateway theory" which is a trick used by anti-drug war propaganda artists. (1) Your source for marijuana causing impulsive behavior included cocaine in the study. Cocaine is known to have some of these effects and cannabis isn't. sourceshttp://www.auburn.edu...Anti-cancer effectJust because there is one study that may say something wouldn't mean it's true if other studies go against it. While the link I included may be a little biased, it included a lot of studies to prove of hemp's anti-tumoural effect. They actually said that cannabis can fight cancer, it never said it only reduces it's effects like con is saying. The study is talking about compounds, that is true but that doesn't mean herbal cannabis can't cure cancer. Herbal cannabis is cheaper and more effective than synthetic extracted compounds. Another study also shows that it can in fact stop the spread of cancer by disabling a gene linked to cancer spread. This would mean the cancer cells would eventually die out. Cannabis can also help with other things, It can cure pain, and also help with epilepsy. http://time.com...;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...fCorrelation vs CausationIt is very easy for the youth to get marijuana thanks to the growing and common black market for marijuana. And the increasing use of marijuana if anything is another reason to legalize it. It's been illegal and the usage rate is still growing. Also, the rates of increase is only by a small percentage. It really isn't valid to arrest a very small portion of marijuana users to try to get people to stop. It is also costing money and decreasing economic growth. Positive effectsYou can talk about the negatives of marijuana all you want but there are positive effects as well. It can lower obesity, anxiety and depression. It can help with opiate addiction and etc. sourcehttp://mic.com...;
Cannabis

HarmThat study about marijuana causing mania is not clear. It mentioned individuals whom experienced symptoms and talked about mania. However, it never specified how often the individuals use marijuana. The people whom suffer from that mental condition could easily be people whom binge on marijuana. Like I mentioned before, there is a clear difference between moderate and heavy consumption of marijuana. People can use marijuana in moderation and be fine. Many people use alcohol and are fine. Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug to many, but that drug is more harmful than marijuana. A mroe recent study actually suggests marijuana's risks are exaggerated. (1) Like many other studies, it also mentioned that alcohol is in fact far worse than marijuana. Certainly, a drug far safer than alcohol must cause lots of damage to the brain. sourceshttp://www.iflscience.com...;Gateway drug?Alcohol "increases the chance" of using harder drugs more than marijuana does. (1) However, the gateway drug theory is still flawed. Drug addicts may start with milder drugs like Marijuana. Certainly nobody would just go shoot up heroin like that, they might want to experiment with milder drugs at first. I also included a source (2) which helps to disprove the gateway drug theory.1. http://www.collective-evolution.com...2. http://www.rand.org...Anti-cancer effectOne study claiming marijuana causes cancer when others claim it cures cancer doesn't mean it causes cancer. I have included a link which shows 43 studies that prove cannabis cures cancer. (1) While tumors may shrink faster under cannabis and radio-therpay combined, remember radiation therpay has severe side effects. Cannabis alone can fight cancer pretty well, it's side effects are lesser than radiation-therapy.1. http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com...Tobacco regulationTobacco regulation really doesn't seem to be working that well. Cigarettes have thousands of chemicals in them, who even knows how much is actually tobacco? (1) Cannabis should be regulated well to make sure it isn't cut up with other drugs. Black market marijuana may not be that pure and could even be laced with meth. 1. http://www.tricountycessation.org...Correlation vs CausationMarijuana use has actually been increasing in USA despite the increased drug control spending. Marijuana usage is especially increasing among high-school students. (1) Marijuana should be legalized because so many people already use it. Black market marijuana is easy to obtain and many people are aware of this. Legalizing it will not have much of an impact among usage. Legalizing it like I said before means we can regulate it. Black market goods can be more risky in general for anything because there's no laws preventing scamming or whatever. 1. http://consumer.healthday.com...
Cannabis

Harm Cannabis causes much more harm than caffeine. The active psychoactive compound in marijuana is THC. Recent studies have shown several negative side effects. Such as marijuana increases likeliness of mania symptoms. (1) It changes the structure of the brain. (2) It causes permanent loss of memory (3,4) It also is an immunosuppressant (5). Propaganda The Pro-marijuana movement's propaganda has spread a lot of myths. You hear that marijuana isn't addictive yet it has an addiction rate of 9%. (6) They claim it is harmless yet it causes several harms which I stated above. And they claim it isn't a gateway drug yet recent studies prove otherwise. (7) Medicinal Uses Cannabis does have several medical uses but that doesn't excuse using it recreationally or medically without a doctor's permission. My opponent claims that it has an ant-tumor effect, this isn't true for all cancers and for the average cancer marijuana actually has a negative effect.(5) There are certain compounds in marijuana that can help with brain cancer but they work better when combined with radiation therapy. Opponent claims that we should replace radiation therapy with marijuana which is just plainly a bad idea. (8) Regulation Tobacco is currently regulated but drug dealers still sell them to minors. If there is a black market for cigarettes then definitely there would still be a black market for marijuana. Legalizing marijuana causes another problem. With marijuana legal, more people would be using it with other recreational drugs, such combinations are dangerous, addictive and even lethal. References 1. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 3. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 4. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 5. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 6. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 7. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 8. http://www.sciencedaily.com...