BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seabiscuits account was unjustifiably closed.

On Contributing nothing. DDO is a venue through which discourse is supposed to occur, and as such for an individual or group of individuals with certain antagonisms to render reticent a member which embodies those certain antagonisms is to betray the dogma of the institution itself. There is a sense in which people should reject anti- egalitarian notions of inequality, fairness (the lack thereof rather), utility, etc. etc. However, it would be counter-intuitive to render the cognitive capacity of human agency restricted to a certain narrow prerogative of some arbitrary set of values in a certain time and place. This is a concept Seabiscuit understands. and instead of allowing the indoctrination of certain bourgeois traditions he destroys the scope on which we are rendered ideologically stalemated, and encourages people not to think like the culture in which we are conditioned but rather to think for ourselves. On vote bombing- 2. Both sides of debate under the accepted norms ultimately rely on judge intervention. Because a judge is asked to vote on the truth value of a position, it assumes that he or she knows everything, because arguments not brought up in the round must also be evaluated in order to deduce the truth of a statement. This ultimately pushes the actual debate to a periphery, as it no longer matters what is said in the round, only what the judge thinks about the resolution. Therefore to logically prove the inherency of an issue would be pointless, because there will always be a narrow scope of what is believed to be happening versus another narrow scope saying the opposite. Therefore it would be impossible for any criterion on which we are voting to be "wrong". Furthermore here is one of Seabiscuits RFD's which claim to be a vote bomb. "All seven points go to Pro. Hermeneutics tell us that there is absolutely no such thing as misinterpretation, and that's the idea that I got from Pros rebuttal. Con's contention 2 was completely irrelevant of course there is a potential for mishandling the risk being higher or lower garners you no offense seeing as how and weapon poses the same risk, I agree with Pro dropping that argument cause it was stupid. Pro is a champ and deserves to win. " This (I would say) was a much more legitimate RFD then the some of his constituency. Furthermore Thett3 is guilty of the same offense (. http://www.debate.org...) where he vote bombed one of Seabiscuits debate. This was obviously in retaliation to Seabiscuit but the principle remains. I'm not suggesting that we delete Thett3's account rather resuscitate Seabiscuits. On being a Jerk- That alone isn't really enough to delete someone's account, and he wasn't a jerk to everyone, just Double_R thett3 and Mongonese, and mostly just Double_R, cause he's a fascist. There is no reason why I need any offense on the side of Pro seeing as how Con is defending the proposition that the action should have been taken, while Pro is arguing that no action should have been taken.
Womens rights

How dare u say that about me, I'm actively trying to be healthy and reach my goal of normal weight. As a strong, independent woman who don't need no man, I believe I will eventually reach my goal through sheer hard work and dedication, something all women have. If I cant, then I will get liposuction, but I will pay for it with MY money, that I worked for so either way I will show a woman's strong will. Everyone deserves their rights, except men obviously, so women deserve them to. Please dont call me a 'fat cnt' or a 'dab', this is a family friendly forum u sexist pig.
Womens rights

Thank you for proving my point further, that men are animals and have small brains. Men are needlessly aggressive and resort to name-calling when they have no valid arguments. I don't like being called a dikhed, so please don't fcking swear on a debate where little kids might be trying to learn how important women are you bastard. Back to the important topic of women's rights. When I was 13 in my first year of secondary school, I asked a boy who I fancied at my school to prom, but instead of declining like a decent human being he proceeded to call me hurtful names, especially about my weight. Some examples were "beached whale", "you've got more rolls than a bakery" and the yo mamma jokes said about me (because I was apparently pregnant, but it was just fat) made me especially depressed. Some included: "Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her", "Yo mamma so fat when she goes swimming the whales start singing "We are Family", "yo mama so fat that she dont need the internet she's already world wide", "Yo mama so fat shes on both sides of the family" This shows why men don't deserve anything in this world, so women should stand up to the persecution and get our rights back.
Womens rights

U r a fkn dikhed. Lol jk. Women cooking and cleaning just proves my point even further, women are mens bitches, they'd have nothing to do in society if it weren't for men, even saying that with men in the world the female impact is still little to none, as they are just used as objects by men to further our advancement on topics in the world. Women deserve as many rights as a duck, because that's effectively what they are, a piece to the puzzle of a mans wolrd. Let's look at the similarites between a woman and a duck. 1. Hunted by men 2. They provide nutrients to men, (ducks for food) (women for the food they cook for men) 3. They have very little impact on society as if there were none of them there was always someone who could do it better. for example. Men can do everything better than a woman, and chickens are far superior than ducks in my opinion but I'm sure that'd be a much more respectable debate as there is an argument for both sides, unlike this one where it is clear women do not deserve rights, on the other hand someone might persuade me that ducks are better than chickens but for now based on my opinion chickens are better than ducks.
children with strict parents acheive greater success in life

see children should love their parents and parents on the other hand should talk to them politely with love and affection childrens are like flowers excess of water(too protective parents can destroy them ) and who told that all humans lie ,we have many people who don't lie ........................... people lie when they think that their is no way to get out of a problem and " 1 thing I want to tell you that am not talking that parents should neglect their child,but they should guide them without being strict" as said by the pakistani newspaper the pakistan times I
children with strict parents acheive greater success in life

If you are too protective to your child he or she may get an reward of discipline but that discipline will destroy the child's future if it is felt unbearable to him/her.....................Strict parenting does not necesarily mean that a child may be destroyed by discipline. Overly strict, militant parents may do this to their child, but this is not a universal case. such children think that the only way to get out of a problem is to tell a lie ONE LIE AFTER THE OTHER ,ONE LIE AFTER THE OTHERNon-sequitor. Kids without strict parents lie too... in fact, all human beings lie. AND HERE WE HAVE GOT AN EXCELLENT LIAR...........this is not said by me but by the british journalist John Farnsworth. Such children are weak from their heart to face any problem and will never raise their voice against any injustice. That's all the more of a reason that we need to teach kids what is right and wrong, and punish them when they do wrong, reward them when they do right. I don't see how this helps Con's argument in any case. finally I ask pro a question if strict parenting is right then don't you think dictatorship is better than democracyStrict parenting isn't equivalent to dictatorship. Even within democracy, we have laws in place that are upheld strictly. I don't see what Con's argument here is either. This is just a gross simplification.Counter arguments:A healthy amount of strictness can do children a lot of good, especially when the child does not know better. This is why we teach kids not to talk to strangers, give them a curfew, and etc. It is to protect them and to protect their best interests. Children often do not have the incentive to clean their rooms, go to bed/wake up early, study and do homework on their own, heck they don't have that incentive even when parents are yelling at them! My point is that a healthy amount of strictness and discipline is better than a parent with no rules.According to a study done by Princeton, children with "strict" parents did better than other children. The context of this study was that in impoverished African-American communities, "strict" parents that kept vigilant eyes on their children's friends and activities were more sucessful parents, and thus had more sucessful children that excelled at school (due to proper parenting and disciplined lessons).[1]https://www.princeton.edu...There are of course other arguments, but as this is a 5 round debate, I will take my time and see what my opponent has to say.
children with strict parents acheive greater success in life

Childhood is the bless of god to us. I think we should accept this gift . I would like to start with the words of Ethiopia ,"If you can't hold a child in your hand hold it in your heart"..... If you are too protective to your child he or she may get an reward of discipline but that discipline will destroy the child's future if it is felt unbearable to him/her..................... such children think that the only way to get out of a problem is to tell a lie ONE LIE AFTER THE OTHER ,ONE LIE AFTER THE OTHER AND HERE WE HAVE GOT AN EXCELLENT LIAR...........this is not said by me but by the british journalist John Farnsworth. Such children are weak from their heart to face any problem and will never raise their voice against any injustice. finally I ask pro a question if strict parenting is right then don't you think dictatorship is better than democracy
children with strict parents acheive greater success in life

see children should love their parents and parents on the other hand should talk to them politely with love and affection This can happen with strict parents. In fact, it could even be argued that parents are only strict with their kids because they love their kids and want them to suceed. childrens are like flowers excess of water(too protective parents can destroy them ) I agree, but this argument works both ways. A flower unwatered at all dies. and who told that all humans lie ,we have many people who don't lie ........................... people lie when they think that their is no way to get out of a problem This statement is completely irrelevant to the debate, but I will reply nonetheless, as I honestly don't think I have met a person that have not told a single lie. It is just statistically speaking, chances are you will end up lying (even if unintentionally) throughout your life. Even a "little white lie" like telling your woman she does not look fat in a dress, etc. and " 1 thing I want to tell you that am not talking that parents should neglect their child,but they should guide them without being strict" as said by the pakistani newspaper the pakistan timesThat's fine, but the purpose of my argument is that a healthy amount of strictness and discipline will do a child more good than a parent that just let's their child do whatever. Children do not just follow guidance if you cannot enforce your guidance upon them. For example, a pre-school teacher may have trouble teaching students by just trying to "guide them" without any sort of discipline or strictness. I don't see a need to add more arguments, as my previous ones remain unrefuted.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

The resolution is phrased so that I only need to show that saving five is PERMISSIBLE (i.e. not worse than saving one). That means I only need show the choices are at least equal. F-16 must show saving one is better than saving five. F-16 hasn't met that burden. Even if using lives as a means is immoral, using five is at least equal to using one (because lives are being used either way). F-16 hasn't argued otherwise. F-16 says inaction doesn’t use the five because “five lives are not being used to save one.” That’s circular reasoning. F-16 hasn’t actually explained why the five aren't used. Inaction is a decision, and that decision implicates the five, which causes them to be used.F-16 drops my example of a choice between saving five, saving one, or saving none. It shows saving five is better because it minimizes the loss of life. Minimizing the loss of life is a moral principle. F-16 never challenged that principle. That principle dictates that saving five is better than saving one.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

Con continues to assert that saving five is better but WHY is saving five better? He posts as if there is some implied reasoning for this. He cannot win this debate because this entire debate is about whether five lives are better than one and WHICH choice is the better one. Con claims that it just is and appeals to the judges to see it. He presents no framework or reasoning AT ALL for why this is true. He simply says "objectively, it is worse."I cited Kant to show the Kantian moral framework which I defended. Not an appeal to authority. My loop example makes clear that a life is being USED to save five. Con does not contest my analogy (he can't do this in the final round) so judges should take it as is. I then showed that using human lives as a means is immoral because they cannot rationally consent to it - Con drops it.Malicious trolley, irrelevant. Inaction does not use five lives to save one because the five lives are not being used to save one. They by default would be killed.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

The Kant quote is an appeal to authority. The loop analogy has no flesh. I don't see the relevance of either. This debate also isn’t about killing a family member to save five random people. As I said before, fine factual distinctions matter. F-16 says life is not quantifiable. But consider: If you had a choice to save five lives, save one life, or save none, the best choice is saving the five.Consider another analogy: the trolley is sent maliciously with intent to kill. Whether you save the five, or let them die, rights are being violated. Here, saving the five is better.These analogies show that saving five lives is better than saving one life. For our problem, inaction causes five to die. Action causes one to die. Either way, a decision must be made. That decision has quantifiable results: five die or one dies.F-16 says you can't quanity life, so you shouldn't choose between five or one. That's incorrect. The result of five dying is worse objectively than the result of one dying.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

Why is one person dying a better result than five people dying? To whom is it a better result? Would it be a "better result" if that one person is a family member or significant other?Con simply states that an arbitrary result is "better" without justifying why. Con appeals to a surface-level argument that five lives are better than one but this entire debate is about whether or not this is true. Con has merely asserted his position in the debate.Prefer my argument that life cannot be quantified, and the loop analogy and Kant evidence: it is immoral to use humans as a means to an end. Con does not respond to this. It outweighs Con's unsupported assertion that life can be quantified and that five lives are better than one. I have never advocated using five people as a means to save one. The scenario is asymetric. Inaction will lead to the five dying. You can actively choose to save them by diverting the trolley, in effect killing one.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

A consistent moral theory can require different acts in different circumstances. Delicate distinctions matter. There’s no reason a case-by-case approach is inherently inconsistent. F-16's analogies are irrelevant because they are different cases (and thus different moral principles might apply).F-16 says I haven’t shown why it’s “preferable” to save the five. I don’t need to show that. I only need show that it’s permissible to save the five.Sacrificing one to save five is permissible because it leads to a better result (only one dead instead of five). The weight given to (1) is at least equal to (2), because the result of following (1) is better than the result of following (2).F-16 claims killing one to save the rest of humanity is unjustified. I disagree. The loss of life there outweighs the violation of a single person's right.I never said using humans as a means is good. But I think using one person as a means is better than using five. F-16 hasn't shown why that's not the case.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

Con must defend a consistent moral theory to ensure fairness. The lack of one enables him to affirm or negate anything he chooses. For instance, a case-by-case analysis may say that in some cases, killing is permissible and Con could simply expand this to any argument.Alternatively, if Con advocates that morality be decided on a case-by-case basis, he must show why in THIS case, it is preferable to kill the one to save five which he hasn't done.Con argued that an abstract moral system would exist under which it is permissible to pull the switch. This is a truism. If it was impossible for there to be a moral system where Con could negate, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Con's nuclear analogy fails because a nuclear holocaust is inclusive. The innocent man would die either way. If the nuclear holocaust leaves the innocent man alive to live a natural life, the judge is unjustified in sentencing him. Con drops my loop analogy and doesn't show why using humans as a means is good.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

F-16's original hypo involves two moral principles: (1) minimizing the loss of life, and (2) not violating a person"s right to life (i.e. not intentionally killing). The problem is finding the correct balance. The weight we should give (1) or (2) depends on the specific facts in each case. For example, F-16's judge hypo. There, sentencing an innocent to death also undermines the rule of law. That fact changes the analysis: (2) takes on greater weight than (1). But imagine the consequence of a "not guilty" is a nuclear holocaust that wipes out humanity. More loss is at stake than in F-16"s example, so (1) takes on greater value. These distinctions highlight the importance of weighing each case on its own terms. Overgeneralizing any moral principle leads to bad outcomes. Also, F-16's means/ends argument cuts both ways: five lives as a means to save one. F-16's original hypo is abstract enough to weigh (1) higher than (2). Saving five at the cost of one is at least morally permissible.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

Consider an example that is morally identical: The track after the switch loops back onto the original track such that the one man will be stopping the trolley and his death will be saving the lives of the five. Is this moral?Consider another analogy: An innocent man is on trial but a mob is calling for the death penalty. If the judge doesn't sentence him to death, the mob is guaranteed to kill hundreds of people. The judge is aware of his innocence beyond doubt. Can the judge morally sentence this man to death.My answer in both cases is no. These analogies show that it is immoral to use human life as a means to an end. Kant argues "a rational being cannot rationally consent to being used merely as a means to an end, so they must always be treated as an end." Can we live in a society where your life may at moment be sacrificed to save another life, or even hundreds or thousands? While this has short-term benefits, such a society impedes on our sense of liberty in the long term.
1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

Resolution: If a trolley is headed towards five people tied to a track and you are near a switch and can switch the trolley onto a different track where one person is tied to the track, you ought not switch.It is assumed that the people the trolley hits will definitely die. Practical considerations will not figure into this.Nor will Kritiks. For instance arguing that 'ought' is entirely subjective, thus this resolution has no right or wrong answer, let the 5 people die, reverse the train, and run the other guy over too, then jump and kill yourself for good measure.In short, the problem as it stands is debateable and has plenty of ground on both sides. DO NOT accept this debate if you don't intend to debate the problem in the spirit in which it was posed. Standard site rules apply. First round for acceptance only. No new arguments by Con in the last round. Character limit is 1000.Time Limit is 12 hours.My position (Pro) is to defend the resolution i.e. do nothing and let five people die.
Moral Values and Duties Cannot Be Objective if Atheism is True

Thank you for initiating this wonderful debate on the topic! I'm very interested in your position on the motion you have put forward!I accept this debate with the hope that the ideas we share will benefit us both! This should be a great conversation!Definition of Atheism:Not that this will become of any great consequence to our conversation - but I would like the definition of atheism to be further defined before we start. This conversation is very much a philosophical conversation and my worry is that the definition put forward might be too limited in scope to allow for a meaning conversation to take place. Allow me to explain:Atheism - rather than a belief position - is also non belief or lack of belief in a god or gods. There are cultures that do not posit a "god concept" entirely. In these cultures, God or gods are not even a thought. More aptly put, concepts of a god or gods are completely devoid from these cultures altogether. These people and cultures would be considered atheist/atheistic by definition - but not because they hold a belief position. Some cultures and histories, in the Far East for example, never posited a god or gods at all to begin with - thus they would not hold a position of belief either way. For them its a non-issue. Modern atheist point this out regularly.And of course, one may in fact also hold a belief that there is no God or that gods do not exist - which is a belief position that is described as disbelief - but this is different than a lack of belief.I think that it is incredibly important to our conversation to distinguish this difference among atheist precisely because there are people in the world who are completely devoid of any conceptual notions of a god or gods (would be considered atheist) and nevertheless engage in behavior in which morality can still be discussed.I do not want to argue semantics during our debate so I want to make the category definition issues clear first as we set the table to have a meaningful conversation.Thanks again and I look forward to a stimulating debate on a very perplexing topic!
Moral Values and Duties Cannot Be Objective if Atheism is True

Round 2 is opening statements. Round 3 is first rebuttals. Round 4 is second rebuttals/closing statements. DEFINITIONS Atheism: belief in the proposition "God does not exist" Objective: independent of any human opinion, i. e. something is *objectively* true if it is true regardless of what any particular person or group thinks. Moral Values: standards by which we judge right and wrong, i. e. "selfishness is wrong" might be a moral value. Moral Duties: that which we ought or ought not to do, i. e. "we should not enslave any human being" might be a moral duty. I focus on being civil and on-point. I try to call out red herrings and stick to the meat of an issue while avoiding ad hominem attacks and irrelevant arguments myself. I view debates as a learning opportunity, not just a competition. All the same, I will put my opponent's arguments to the test as well as I can!