BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is more ethical to kill five people rather than one person. (Please read description)

In the above scenario, I pose the question: "Kill 5 people, or veer off the track and simply kill one". A utilitarian would argue that it is better to spare the lives of the 5 workers and kill one as it results in the greater good. However, I argue that if in this situation I would kill the five workers and spare the one worker off the track. My argument is based on consequential morality. By letting the runaway trolley cart kill the five workers, you are essentially a passive bystander. The act of conciously turning the steering wheel to the other track involves you in the situation and results in your choice becoming real. It is your choice to turn the steering wheel and therefore it is your choice that results in the death of the one worker on the other track. Left to ru. It's course the trolley cart would have killed the five workers, and you would have had nothing to do with it. Consider the possibility that you were not in fact in the trolley cart. Without any action performed by yourself in the trolley cart, it would have killed the five workers on the track. Thereby I argue that by simply not changing the course of the trolley cart, means that you are morally exonerated as a result of no concious choice of your own. By making the choice to turn the steering wheel you are choosing to murder someone. It is you that will cause the death of the worker, rather than the trolley that will cause the death of the 5 other workers. The troller cart killing the five workers is a tragic incident that would have happened with or without your presence at the event. I will expand on this argument by using an example. Suppose you are a doctor who is looking after 2 patients, one of the patients is terminally ill and has but a year to live, while the other needs and heart transplant and if he doesn't get the organ in the next few weeks he will die. As the doctor, you have a choice, you can either sacrifice the life of the terminally ill patient without his consent and give the second patient the heart he needs, or you can wait and let them both die. I am right to assume that most people wouldn't sacrafice the life of the first patient for the second patient. This is based on the same concept. It seems more morally just to let the events occur and not become involved. Through sacraficing the life of the first patient to save the second you are making a concious decision that will result in the death of one person to save another. In the same way in the trolley cart example, the death of one person will be your choice, rather than simply a tragic event that has occurred. In both examples a death will be the result of a desicion that you have made. Therefore, morally I believe that not having any influence on the trolley cart in the first example results in a more ethical outcome. In the same way in the second example I have given, although two lives will be lost rather than just one, it is more morally righteous to allow them both to die than to make a decision that will result in the death of one person. I look forward to hearing your responses.
It is more ethical to kill five people rather than one person. (Please read description)

Philisophical/Ethical debating. I am aware that although there may be no correct answer, as my debate is based purely on abstract thought, although I am intrigued to see what the thoughts/opinions will be. The topic of debate is as follows: I would like to start off by submitting a scenario. Suppose you are travelling down a track in a runaway trolley Cart, you are travelling at 60mph and the brakes are broken. At the end of the track in the distance you notice 5 workers going about their day. Assume that you know for certain that the impact of the trolley cart will kill them all for sure. You notice that the steering wheel in the trolley cart does work, and so you could veer off onto a bend in the track, but at the end of the other track is 1 single worker. You have the choice of killing 5 workers, or killing 1. In this debate I will argue that it is more ethical to kill the 5 workers than it is to kill the 1 worker.
It is more ethical to kill five people rather than one person. (Please read description)

First of all, I would like to commend you on cleaning up your argument here. I think your last argument was very strong, especially since you mentioned by purposefully changing your direction it would be murder. I get by not changing course, it technically would be your 'destiny' and also you would have no interference on the situation, so it could be counted as a plain accident. Still, I want to pose a situation for you. Since the trolley crash would be fatal for the workers, I would assume it would also be fatal for you in the cart. In this case, would you rather die knowing you took one live opposed to five (Therefore saving 4 lives) or die knowing you lived your 'destiny'? I, for one, would rather die knowing I saved lives. I really do understand that killing the five would seem morally just to some, but for me looking at this completely logically, taking 1 life opposed to 5 seems like an easy choice. Murder or not, either choice you take would result in death, though you have the power to change the amount you kill. I would not care the act would technically be considered murder. Personally, without even knowing the full situation I would steer toward the option where I could save lives. But this could just be me, considering I think more about the logical option and simple numbers opposed to the moral rightness and philosophy of the situation. Since you are making a split second decision, you also wouldn't have time to debate about it as we are doing now. You see one person and five, most people would just automatically make the choice. Anyways, thanks for the awesome debate! As I mentioned before, it was very thought provoking.
Wilt Chamberlain, statistically, is the greatest individual basketball player ever

Reply to Rebuttal Contention 1: Then it wouldn't be fair to count up MJ's Rebounds or steals, because they are mainly guard-specific stats. This pretty much means we can only base on who was the better scorer, since blocks weren't around in Wilt's day, which it wouldn't count anyways because you would contend it was too guard specific. Reply to Rebuttal Contention 2: Wilt had a model of excellent consistency in scoring, by averaging 30 and above his first 8 seasons. Jordan didn't get his first 30 point season until his 3rd season Reply to Contention 1: This isn't a valid argument, since, back in Wilt's day, MVPs were chosen by players, and since players didn't like Wilt too much, a lot of. The time, they just gave the Award to Bill Russell, or, in one case, Oscar Robertson. So you can't contend with the MVP Amounts. Also, Finals MVP Is a matter of team dominance, because you can't win the Finals MVP unless your team wins. And third, nobody tries too hard in all-star games. It is an exhibition event for the most part. Those MVPs shouldn't count. Reply to Contention 2: I do concede that Jordan did better in the playoffs, but Wilt wasn't even in the position most of the time to make a game-winning shot. Reply to Contention 3: Well then, Wilt and Jordon, per game, are separated by a few hundredths of a point, so PPG isn't going to help to much, as a few hundredths is the most minor difference in these terms. Michael played more games than Wilt, so his points are higher. My contention FG Pct.: Scoring can be a useless stat sometimes depending on the selfishness of the player. This stat proves Wilt is a better scorer. For their careers, MJ had a .497 FG Pct. Chamberlain had a .540 FG Pct. And, in 1972-1973, Wilt set the record for field goal Pct that hasn't been broken with a .727 FG Pct. 2nd contention is Minutes: Wilt led the league in minutes for 8 years. MJ only led the league in minutes 3 times. This also brings up another thing. Wilt never fouled out. And this counts, because at center, you're supposed to foul out a lot. Not Wilt. He was a clean player. 3rd Contention is Consistent Scoring Streaks: You say consistency trumps all, Wilt was the most consistent. Wilt holds the record with most 50 point games in a row with 7, most 40 point games in a row with 14, most 30 point games in a row with 65, and most 20 point games in a row with 126. Wilt had 45 50 point games in a season. Michael Jordan has had only 39 (including playoffs) for his CAREER. It is clear Wilt was the better scorer. Sources: 1. http://www.basketball-reference.com... 2. http://www.basketball-reference.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wilt Chamberlain, statistically, is the greatest individual basketball player ever

Since I did say this was about the greatest INDIVIDUAL player, championships can't be counted in this debate. Well, here we go. Wilt Chamberlain is statistically the greatest individual basketball player because Wilt is the only player to have been once a league leader in the major 3 basketball stats. He led the league in assists once, led the league in scoring 7 times, and led the league in rebounds 11 times. Wilt averaged more points in a season than anyone else, averaging 50.4 PPG in 1962, and scoring the most points in a season with over 4,000 points. Wilt is the career leader in total rebounds, with 23,924. He also has the highest career total for rebounds a game, with 22.9 total rebounds a game.
should kids be vaccinated

Well it is time for me to expand on my previous two points. My first point is that people do have dangerous reactions to vaccines. The probability of these dangerous reactions are different depending on the vaccine. Each vaccine has a different probability of a bad reactions and different types of bad reactions (1). By forcing everyone to take a vaccine forces some to take something harmful, and in rare situations even lethal. Currently working at a bio-lab with a safety level of 3 requires mandatory vaccines, but its reasons for being mandatory are far more justifiable since it deals with working with harmful pathogens as part of the job. But the requirement points out crucial effects of making vaccines mandatory, it prevents people with harmful reactions to vaccines from being able to be in the job. For example, Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into biosafety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures. If vaccines were to be mandatory, it would force people with bad reactions to either do something that makes them sick or even worse kill them, or be force to go through any punishments for not following the mandate. My second point is that the government should not be able to force people to have a substance injected into their body. There are certain things that should not be in the governments power do to the possibility of abuse. While it may currently seem that the government cannot do anything wrong, that doesn't mean that it can't go down hill in the future. The last thing you need in the future is a corrupt government that can inject the citizens with what it deems fit. In addition mandating vaccines encroaches on our rights. People should have a right to decide what doesn't go into our body. Sources 1 http://www.cdc.gov...
should kids be vaccinated

I believe vaccines are a useful tool at preventing illness and saving lives. The smallpox vaccine was able to eradicate smallpox from the earth, which has saved countless lives. The rabies vaccine is the only way you can survive rabies, otherwise it would be 100% lethal. And there is work on an ebola vaccine which would stop ebola outbreaks in the future. Yet despite my support of vaccines, I do not think they should be mandatory. Making vaccines mandatory is a bad idea for two reasons. Reason one, some people have dangerous or even fatal reactions to vaccines. Reason two, the government should not force substances into people's bodies. I will expand on these point in the next round.
Molesting children is wrong.

I know you'll regret it. This was schmuck bait. Subjective morality means I cannot meet BOP, so I'll get to laugh when everybody votes against "Molesting children is wrong". That said, here are some serious reasons: 1. It harms children physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually. 2. It increases the probability they will become abusers themselves, or seek out abusive relationships. 3. It increases the spread of STDs among the priesthood.
Iran-Irak War injustified

1. Your argument is invalid because this has nothing to do with how Saddam Hussein ruled his country because this is about the Iran - Iraq war and not the Iraq war. Yes you come with arguments about Iranian people too but that is not much. Oh and also, where did you get your information from, where are the sources to backup you story. 2. Saddam Hussein ruled tyrannical. He wanted the Shia majority to be suppressed, but he got scared that the Iranian might encourage them to step forward and defense themselves, so that"s why he attacked Iran in the first place. He didn"t want the Iranian to be the dominate Persian Gulf state no more. He wanted Iraq to be it. It began because of the border disputes and some religious issues. Iraq attacked Iran by air. Saddam Hussein hoped they had advantage because they attacked without any formal warning but they only made limited progress since Iran was quick; they already regained all lost territories by June 1982. (2) (1) The war lasted for 8 years. The United Nations Security Council called for a cease fire but it was ignored by hostiles on both sides. So the US began helping Iraq. They couldn"t afford to let Iraq lose because they were receiving oil from this nation. So they sent equipment, medical supplies and communications devices to Iraq. All of a sudden the US was fighting alongside Iraq against Iran. The hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The war ended because of a Resolution 598, a UN-brokered ceasefire which was accepted by both sides. 3. You can say that they started a war for nothing, because the war brought neither reparations nor changes in borders. The war cost both sides a lot of lives; half million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers, with an equivalent number of civilians whom had died with and more with injuries. It also cost economic damage. So in my opinion this war is not justified. The US should not have interfered in the conflict by sending their troops to fight a war not involving them in anyway. Especially since the only reason they really did this was to make sure their main source of imported oil was safe. Kuwait began to produce more oil, so the US got another fuel source, and Iraq"s economy went down. Overall this undermines the purpose for the US joining the war. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.debate.org...
The USFG should continue to fund Israel militarily during the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This debate is a part of the DDO Olympics debate tournament, sponsored by Bsh1. The rules and other information regarding the tournament can be found here:http://www.debate.org...Full text of resolution: The USFG should continue to fund Israel militarily during the Israel-Palestine conflict.Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive (No rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments Definitions:continue to fund: give monetary aid at the same or an increased rateto fund militarily: to provide monetary aid for the purpose of helping advance Israel's military interests Notes: No new arguments in the final round.No kritiks of the resolution.No trolling.No semantics.Whiteflame should PM me or comment on this debate for any changes he wishes to make to rules, definitions, or structure of the debate. Once the debate is accepted by the contender, he waives all rights to add definitions, change structure, or any other aspects of this debate. Should he attempt to do so, do not weigh these ideas when voting. BoP is shared, resolution must be looked at on balance. Whiteflame's BoP is to prove that we should continue to fund Israel at the same or an increased rate, while Warren42's BoP is to prove that we should completely stop funding Israeli military during this conflict. If whiteflame so chooses, he can use the following structure, please just notify me:Round 1: Con gives rules/Pro gives opening arguments Round 2: Con's opening arguments/Pro rebuts Con's case Round 3: Con rebuts Pro's case/Pro closing arguments. Round 4: Con closing arguments/Pro waives.
Super Hero Battle!

So I noticed their was a who would win fictional characters battle. The problem was that their was a lot of unnecessary rules like the battle space was confined and Superheroes weren't really allowed because of their God-like abilities. However, Superheroes are cool as we all know so I decided I wanted to make one! Mine will have rules but I can explain each rules in way that is non-restrictive but constructive to the battle. Also upon accepting this debate my opponent must message me his list of superheroes and I will message him mine. There will be no counterpicking on either side. Resolution: My team of 5 Superheroes will beat your team of 5 Superheroes 1. The battle will not be to the death but to the point that the one other one cannot continue. So if a opponent cannot literally be killed but can be ko'd then they still lose. Obviously if they do get killed then they lose ^_^ 2. This isn't a scenario versus scenario type of debate. What the arguments will be centered on is the ability of each independent superhero and their synergy together. 3. If one picks two heroes that have fought together before or are on a team together( Batman and Superman or Wolverine and Cyclopes for example) then you can't argue that they have better synergy because of that reason. 4. You cannot use uncanon material about your superhero. 5. When you pick a hero you should specify the series and time period you are referring too. Not just the generic hero so if I say Superman, I must specify what time period of superman and which series of that hero I am referring too(like the animated series or the old comics) 6. There are a few superheroes that it would be unfair to use: Superman(pre-1986 and Future Superman) Mr.Manhattan Gods(not like Kami or Thor, Gods like One-above-all) Doctor Strange Deadpool/Deathstroke Silver Surfer 7. General debate etiquette. 8. Any questions please message me privately.
CNN is not fake news

I will claim that CNN does publish fake news. Because your claim is "CNN has never been proven to publish fake news. ", I must prove only one case where CNN has published "fake news". Fake News- News which is either completely false, has multiple false aspects, or is meant to mislead the viewer. Arguement:1. The Koi PondDuring Trump's visit to Japan, CNN posted a video showing Trump dumping a box of fish food into the water. View the video here:. https://twitter.com...This news circulated, with everybody criticizing Trump, and blaming him for overfeeding fish. What the video doesn't show, is the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe dumping his box in the water first. View the video (By "The Guardian") here:This news was meant to mislead the viewers, and therefore is fake news.
CNN is not fake news

While Pro agrees that fake news is false or misleading, they claim that intent of spreading false or fake news must be proven, a Mens Rea of sorts.(You honestly should have posted your definition in round 1, so we could have these rounds to further debate.)Pro also says I must have intent.The intention of this was to discredit Trump, attempting to show that he thinks himself better then Abe (As the people only see Abe spooning in food, not dumping it out.), and that he is bigoted.Now, Pro says the CNN article claims, "The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump." This is true, however this is not shown in the twitter post. In a day and age where people use social media for news, this information should be included. Anyone who looks at CNN's twitter and see this will just see the tweet and a cropped out video, and I assure you 95% of the people did not go and read the full article.The purpose was still to mislead, as what really happened was hidden away in the article, and not displayed in the tweet.Also, Mens Rea goes both ways.- Why did they crop out Shinzo Abe dumping out food? Why not include the full video, and avoid all of this? They obviously did it intentionally, zooming in on Trump completely to cut Abe out of the picture.- Why even make news of this?- Why caption/label it the way they did?Even though they included the sentence about Abe "appearing" to dump out food, the overall purpose was still to mislead readers.
CNN is not fake news

First, we need to agree on the definition of fake news. Fake news is defined as false or misleading information published with the intent to deliver misinformation. Just because something is false or misleading, doesn"t necessarily make it fake news, or a lie. Intent matters & must be proven. Now that we know we need to prove intent to deliver a guilty verdict, out of the thousands of news reports on Trump, the initial evidence provided is limited to CNN"s reporting on Trump dumping an entire box of food into a koi pond, implying Trump was impatient. The CNN article you linked includes the following quote: "The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump." You can read the article within the video you sourced. By including the aforementioned information, the CNN news report on Trump feeding koi is definitely miscaptioned, but doesn"t meet the low standard of fake news because intent is not proven.
skateboarding is a hard sport

First of all, look to my first speech to see all of the dropped arguments within that as most of these went un argued. Second of all, against his last speech, he was talking about how he was sorry that I could not skateboard or do any sports. This in not true, I admit that I can not skateboard, but i can do many other sports such as ping pong and marching band (at least it takes skill if you don't consider it a sport)... neither of these things I could do very well when I started, but when I put my mind to it, it was extremely easy, it just took some time. The difference between these two things is that I put my mind to on of the things but not the other. Which brings up a very simple quote that reads, "Anything is possible if you put your mind to it." So far in this debate, he has only proved the lack of interest that skateboarding has and the lack of places to practice, but that in and of itself is not the debate. He has the burden of proof of skateboarding is a hard sport. I encourage anyone judging this debate to go back and point out exactly where he even said this or how he even proved this. I have proved that it is no harder than any sports, that it is just hard to get into (for many people) which means the less people that are in it, and I have also proved that there are few places to do it at (by his own admittance in his first speech). In the end, none of his arguments stand at the end of this round while all of mine do. Which is why I have proved that skateboarding is not a hard sport so please vote Con. I thank my opponent for this great round. This was my first online debate and I hope to have many more... Thank You
skateboarding is a hard sport

ok well im sry u cnat do any sports. but how long do u think it to BAM to do a kick flip to a manual to a grind or a tripple back flip (if he can do one).i didnt mean thats its just u who cant skateboard but its hard for a lot of people i just think its hard for everyone even if u try. even the ollie is hard(thats when u jump up with the board). yes somethings are easer than other in skateboarding but it is still verry hard. im good but its hard for me to heal flip. its fun so go buy a skate board and try.