BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many.

1) By killing one person to save the lives of many you take the burden of moral wrongdoing onto yourself in order to try and combat the actions of another.- By killing this one innocent person to save the lives of "many" you then must kill. It is not morally permissible for a person to kill anyone at anytime. Now since you are trying to save the lives of many we can assume you are not the one who are putting the many in danger. Therefore it is not moral to taint your own purity in order to try and counter act the actions of another.If you kill the one innocent person the only resulting action is the death of an innocent person by your hands. You cannot weigh the value of a future possibility against an action that has already happened.For example: Someone tells you to kill a young child in order to save 10 grown men so you go ahead and kill the child.Now you are left with one result: the death of a child at your hand. The statement "well if you hadn't killed this boy there was a chance 10 men could have died" cannot outweigh the action committed.Therefore this is morally wrong. You cannot be expected to taint your own morality for the possibility of a better future.2) The ScenarioThe wording of this resolution says you can kill an innocent to save the lives of "many" but there are many cases in which this would be incorrect.- You kill a toddler to save "many" convicted criminals from death row.- You kill a baby straight from the mothers womb to save "many" teen drug addicts- You murder a young girl to save "many" rapists- You kill your own brother to save "many" old men on the edge of deathIn these situations the killing of an innocent would not be morally permissible. 3) Killing is WrongKilling is immoral period. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to kill anyone no matter who is saved. It may be justifiable in the eyes of society. It may be justifiable to yourself.But killing anyone, at any time, for any reason is immoral. You cannot be expected to kill someone in order to save "many" from a killer. This would not only make you a murderer but also a hypocrite. By saving some from the hand of a murderer by subjecting an innocent to murder is hypocritical. Now you have committed two moral wrongs to undo the actions of another autonomous being. You cannot be expected to do this and it is still morally wrong. Now you have committed more moral wrongs than the murderer.You cannot be expected to kill someone to alter nature. Saving someone from a car accident or drowning by killing an innocent again leaves nothing in its wake but murder.Murder is morally impermissible at all times and the only justification you'll get out of it is for yourself. No net gain of life is enough to outweigh any lose of life at the hands of murder.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many.

>I'm re-opening a very interesting thread that another user had previously opened, but he disabled his account.< --------------------------------------------------------------- "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many." I start my debate by simply re-phrasing the statement, in my view this statement is saying: Kill one person to save many - or kill many to save one, in other words, This is a trick question, none of the options stated in this statement will allow you to get away without killing, so in my view, any of these options aren't morally permissible, but looking at the question in the context of which one is a better decision, would you rather save one innocent person, or many people, with a chance that atleast 2 are innocent also? Which one do you think is more morally permissible?
Reasons why I dislike school

Firstly, when you get to writing actual papers, yes almost every single one does require some sort of research. Again, it gives you the opportunity to learn more by finding out more on a topic. You may find it annoying, but it's not really debatable. Secondly, if that happens, then that person did not try and do not care about their grades. You go to school to learn. You go to learn and you may have to do additional research to learn more about a subject. Thirdly, no, it's not really. Again, learning is good. Just because you are annoyed and frustrated with school doesn't mean those things will later be irrelevant. Knowledge is never a bad thing to have, nor is expanding by learning something. And finally yeah it may be annoying and stupid to you. But it isn't really debatable that you do not like it and find it stupid. Much of this isn't really debatable things just complaints about why you don't like school.
Reasons why I dislike school

Regarding your first point. Setting a work, page, or character limit is pointless. If you made a point in about 400 words and you have to have the essay be 1,000 wards, the only thing you're accomplishing is having you paper being lengthy at best and pointless at worst. Also, setting word limits does not teach you how to site or reference, unless the paper requires you to do research, then yes, but for most of the time, no it won't. Second, no it won't help them. All it would accomplish is having the person get a bad grade because they don't know about the subject. Third, yes it might seem a bit silly. But, it's still a fair point to make. We have 12 years of education (in the US) and some of it is being taught irrelevant things. And on your last point, it's just something I never understood and found stupid. Does it matter whether we get sweaty. Regardless, we're going to wash our clothes anyways, so what's the point. It's just one more thing to worry about. When I went to middle school, so kids got detention because they didn't wear their PE uniforms. Overall, I just found that stupid.
Reasons why I dislike school

Setting word limits teaches you to flesh out a subject and truly research it and teaches you how to use sources, how to reference, how to cite... It can be frustrating but 5 pages or 10 on how jazz has made music rise back up could be covered in a number of ways. It may seem stupid, but those limits certainly helped teach me how to research, form arguments, and look at the subject in different ways to make the paper longer. You say "Speaking of certain topics, why would you give them. There's a very likely chance that one person, at least, will not know the topic." That is good. That means they will have to learn about the topic and actually further their knowledge. This is not a negative thing. "some of the stuff you learn in school will more likely become irrelevant to you in the future." Sure, some might. However, using the argument that you want to not learn things because you may not use them is, to me, a little silly. Learning is always good, having knowledge is good. Just because you feel you may not use it does not mean that you won't. Again, learning is good. People say this with things like Math or Literature classes and I find it odd people don't want to have knowledge. Yes, some teachers suck. It is unfortunate when you get a bad teacher, but not much of a debate there... About the P.E. uniforms, I believe that is because you do activities in P.E. that require movement. I never minded changing, I'd rather not get what I'm wearing sweaty or dirty from whatever activity there was that day.
Reasons why I dislike school

Setting word limits are stupid. For example, if I make my point in one to two pages, why are you forcing me to write 5 pages of something I already made my point on in much less writing. This is made especially bad if you're given a certain topic. For example, I have to write a 10 page essay on why infused jazz music has mad music rise back up. Basically, if I've made my point, let me just turn my essay in, don't set limits. Speaking of certain topics, why would you give them. There's a very likely chance that one person, at least, will not know the topic. Something else that I don't like is the fact that some of the stuff you learn in school will more likely become irrelevant to you in the future. Something else I dislike is the fact that some teachers either don't do their best at teaching their students, and some teachers won't teach much. Something that I never understood was the fact that you had to wear a P.E. uniform in P.E. What's the point, is it because its better than wearing jeans and a T-shirt. The only thing that you would have to wear a P.E. uniform is if you were wearing a skirt or a dress, or something. I'd rather wear the clothes I'm wearing to school, instead of paying money for clothes that I'm going to use for about a hour at a time.
Minecraft is Satanic

Hahahaha, kid, I applaud you for putting me one step closer to voting privileges. Well, that is, if you don't forfeit. Since you have the BoP, it is you that must argue, not me. Notch is the creator of Minecraft, and he has the final say of what is canon and what is not. If you can't prove to me directly that he stated it is satanic, then at best, your argument is just a theory, which of course by definition is a collection of ideas formed to make a conclusion, not a contention, let alone evidence.
Minecraft is Satanic

A Christian Child should not play Minecraft, and a Christian Parent should not allow their child to play the Satanic game. Minecraft promotes Mormonism, by teaching a false belief that children will become gods of their own universes, that they built themselves, while in reality, only God can create a universe, and players will never become gods. Minecraft also promotes Darwinism, another false belief which is responsible for many evils, by allowing players to create new lifeforms, while only God can create new lifeforms, and Satan cannot. Minecraft is filled with perversion, as players who are called by the devil create pornographic and violent builds that can scar a child's mind for the rest of their lives! Satan used this game, called Notch to create such an evil game, that introduces children to wicked imagery built by the devil's spawn, at such an early age, that will completely change their life, from being a Devoted Christian, to an Immoral Atheist or Satanist. The game can also make children more likely to become sex slaves, and destroy the economy. Resist the Devil, and he shall flee from you. Resist the game, and he will no longer use it for perversion. Nobody should play this satanic video game.
children should not go to school

Children should go to school and learn things from a human teacher.1. Social Development Developing socially is one of the most important parts of early school. If children are not introduced to others their age, they may feel out of touch with their generation. 2. ImpracticalVery few parents would be ready and willing to leave their five- or six-year-old child at home alone all day to play learning games online. This means, at least one parent would have to be home. Not all families have a parent to spare for this, or the money to spare for a nanny.3. Promotes laziness If a child is never expected to get out and go to school, then it is unlikely they would be willing to get out and go get a job. While some jobs may allow work from home, this will not be all inclusive. A child conditioned to work online will always feel the need to work online. Away from people their age. 4. UnreliableKids all advance at different paces. A good teacher is able to adress the parents of a student falling behind, and able to stimulate the child working ahead. Without the social student-teacher interaction, signs of an advanced or behind student are much harder to pick up. "There's lots of things I can do at school, that I can't do at home on my own."
The Bible is Liberal not Conservative

When Christ died, God deliberately caused his death by the hands of human beings (Is. 53:10). He was suffering the rejection of God for the whole world, even though he is a perfect and sinless man (1 Pt. 2:22). He died in our place to give us eternal life (Jn. 12:32). Christ saved us when he rose again from the dead (Rom. 4:25). That means that we are free to enjoy all of God's blessings, including earthly wealth and power, when he returns. He saved everyone, especially those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10). It may seem like a noble thing to earn our salvation by good deeds, but it is very arrogant to believe that we can do this. We need to accept that Jesus has given us this free gift. Otherwise, our moral efforts will be fruitless in achieving any sort of salvation. We need God's power and God's mercy.
The Bible is Liberal not Conservative

Greetings! As my opponent, Pro, never defined any of the words, s/he gives me the authority to do so. Bible: the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.[1]Liberal: open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.[2]Conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.[3]Burden of Proof: My opponent is the Proposition, and is affirming the positive so he holds the complete burden of proof. He must show, by logical argumentation, that the Bible in fact is "open to new beahviour or opinions and is willing to discard traditional views". If he cannot do so, he loses the debate. As I am only Con I need not present any positive material, although there is plenty. I simply have to refute the arguments presented by the Proposition. No Actual Quotations Pro has not actually quoted anything from the canonical scripture supporting his views. He simply makes random assertions. He says that the only socially conservative parts of the Bible are pointing to the holiness of God. In fact the Bible gives a special position to holy men who believe, and even goes so far as to say in Deuteronomy 17:12 "Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God is to be put to death."RudenessIt seems weird that my opponent wants to spread love, but shows ill conduct in the debate. He states that all those who go against his belief (including his opponent, I) should be "laughed at and occasionally swore (sic) at". Factual Inaccuracy My opponent claims that the New Testament endorses enjoying sex, and eating and drinking, but Jesus said thus: "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (NRSV, Mark 7:20-23) So clearly one cannot enjoy sex at all times, and so the Bible places heavy restrictions. And Catholic priests are not even allowed to marry. So again my opponent has really not given any arguments just bare assertions. He has not quoted the Bible or given any other argumentation to back up his claims. [1]https://www.google.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]https://www.google.com...;
The Bible is Liberal not Conservative

The scriptures which are claimed to be believed by both Catholics, Protestants, and other adherents to Christianity, are not conservative as is presumed by many. They are liberal. While the Old Testament shows a bit of what might seem to be socially conservative, the "conservative" parts are mostly aimed at "pointing to the holiness of God"--demonstrating that the Lord is different and special. Most of the values, especially "love your neighbour as yourself" go against conservatives, who are often rich individuals who do not give the poor what they would want if they were instead the poor ones. In contrast to these individuals, who in my opinion should be laughed at and occasionally swore at, the Bible very much advocates treating other people the way you would like to be treated. (Of course, some other religions do the same thing). In the NT, religious believers are encouraged to eat and drink and enjoy sex, while also enjoying the goodness of God. However, the key thing to remember is that most things are good as long as they don't hurt other people or cause them to do something that they believe is wrong. For example, one should not be quick to drink in the presence of someone who believes it is wrong to drink. Otherwise, they feel pressured to drink while still believing that it is wrong. When they drink, they are sinning because they are doing something that they THINK is wrong. I am a strong liberal and I support all liberal policies except abortion and gay marriage. In fact, the reason I am a liberal is because I have read and carefully evaluated the things that the Bible says. Before doing that, I was conservative. Thank you for reading--if you can argue that the Bible is conservative, then please take the con/against position.
Ultimate Team War:Corrida Colosseum

I accept the rules Pro provided.Team Chaos1. Wolverine (X-Men)Possessing an adamantium skeltal structure and metal claws, Wolverine is a mutant born with profound regenerative abilities that allow him to age at an incredibly slow rate. His powers will be the same as those in the comic books he is featured in.http://en.wikipedia.org...2. Whitebeard (One Piece)Commonly known as Edward Newgate, Whitebeard is one of the Four Emperors in the world of One Piece. As Whitebeard (from now on abbreviated as "WB") is currently dead, he will be in the same condition as he was at the very start of Marineford and will possess his bisento. http://onepiece.wikia.com...3. Aokiji (One Piece)Aokiji is a former admiral and a powerful devil fruit eater, capable of turning into and manipulating ice. http://onepiece.wikia.com...4. Father (FMA: Brotherhood)Father is the main antagonist of FMAB and is capable of performing advanced alchemy without using transmutation circles. If Pro considers Father's third form to be a violation of the rules (with proper justification), Father will remain in his second form throughout the duration of the fight.http://fma.wikia.com...5. Madara Uchiha (Naruto)As the former leader of the extinct Uchiha clan, Madara possesses a wide variety of powerful jutsu and, in his Edo Tensei state, has amazing regenerative abilities. He will possess the same powers as he did in Edo Tensei after he was freed from Kabuto's command. http://naruto.wikia.com...Location:Although Pro stated that he would determine his team's location in R1, he has not yet done so. I can only assume that Pro's team will start at one end of the ring and my team at the other. It's been quite a while since I've done a debate, so I'm looking forward to see what Pro has in mind, especially as I've never participated in an Ultimate Team War. With that, I hand over the next round to Pro.
Homosexuality has no virtue.

I Thank each and every person that has read thia. I also thank my oppoent for allowing to discuss this a little(wish we coulda gone further.) I pull my arguement and points from the previous rounds to end. 1. Homosexuality (the act)has not virtue whatsoever. 2. Homosexuality does not improve society (as a act.) 3. Homosexuality is biologically wrong. 4. Homosexulity is morally selfish. I thank you! VOTE PRO~
gender is an opinion rather than someones actual sex

Opinions are thoughts that people have in their head, are you stating that gender is all in our heads? I am not against transgenders or anyone like that, but when you are born you gain the genes for a specific sex. Opinions are thoughts in your head that you are allowed to choose and tweak, biology and the chemical makeup of your body you are not. Everyone has different opinions on themselves and others, so when one person identifies as a male but was previously a female, people tend to look at them differently. It's their opinion and it doesn't mean it's true. If gender was based on other's opinions you'd be misgendered every single day.
So-called "Separation of Church and State" Is Unconstitutional and Therefore Illegal

Okay, now that we are down to the final round, I think finally actually understand his argument completely. Let's try to put it in syllogistic form.P1. The Constitution makes no mention of the phrase "separation of church and state"P2. Since the exact phrase isn't mentioned, the separation is unconstitutionalC1. Therefore, the separation is illegalC2. Since the separation is illegal, schools are required by law to teach theism.i really tried, I really did, but I really don't understand why any of this makes sense.The exact words "separation of church and state" don't appear, but that doesn't mean that the idea isn't there. And even if it wasn't there, that wouldn't make it unconstitutional. And why must it be theism taught in schools? If there is no separation of church and state, why not teach Buddhism? Or Satanism? And of course, which variant of theism?My opponent completely ignores me calling him out on cherry picking, quote mining, and assertions, therefore they still stand. He has completely failed to display why we should repeal the separation of church and state, and just pretended it didn't exist.Thank you for your time, and in the words of my opponent you lost the debate
So-called "Separation of Church and State" Is Unconstitutional and Therefore Illegal

Someone wrote: "In the original Constitution, the separation is mentioned in Article 6 Section 3 preventing religious tests for public office." No it isn't. "Second off in the Bill of Rights, it is mentioned in the first amendment." No it isn't. "My opponent is right, the words "separation of church and state' don't appear anywhere in the Constitution nor the amendments." Thank you for that admission -- you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
So-called "Separation of Church and State" Is Unconstitutional and Therefore Illegal

If something is unconstitutional, it must violate/no be in accordance with either the original constitution or the subsequent amendments. In the original Constitution, the separation is mentioned in Article 6 Section 3 preventing religious tests for public office. Second off in the Bill of Rights, it is mentioned in the first amendment. My opponent is right, the words "separation of church and state' don't appear anywhere in the Constitution nor the amendments. But this does not mean the idea is nonexistent. The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible, nor does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. Nor does Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, or the Golden Rule. Just because something isn't mentioned word for word, does not mean the idea isn't there.My opponent seems to be fond cherry martinis since he does a lot of cherry picking and quote mining. When I say, "with the only mention of religion being Article 6 Section 3," this comes after saying "The separation of church and state is almost entirely unmentioned in the original Constitution if we exclude the amendments (as my opponent wishes to do)," Religion isn't mentioned in the original Constitution besides that article. I specifically said if "we exclude the amendments." I too could cherry pick, citing the Psalms to say there is no god.He also seems fond of merely making assertions, such as freely calling me a liar. In the second round, about a quarter of his responses to my quote mined words were merely saying "no it wouldn't" and "no it isn't." There is a word rational people like to use, it's called evidence. What evidence does my opponent have for not only those claims, but for his claims in his opening statement? I too could fill the debate with bluster and bombast,Unless we include you arguing against people who aren't your opponent in the comments, you did not cover the First Amendment.Why would theism be taught in schools? If there is no separation of church and state, why not teach atheistic Buddhism? It's an option. Or Satanism (Many Satanists are just atheists/agnostics)? Praise Satan!