BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women tougher than men

Some men are tougher than women but on average women are tougher. According to a study, the fairer sex is genetically programmed to better resist infections and cancer, and also have a back-up system for fighting disease. The discovery sheds light on why members of the so-called stronger sex succumb to "man-flu". Their immune systems are no match for those of wives and girlfriends because of the female X-chromosome, scientists believe. The reason why women are more robust appears to be microRNAs - short strands of RNA encoded on the chromosome. RNA is a genetic cousin of DNA and can have important biological effects. The microRNAs have the effect of "silencing" immunity genes on a man's X-chromosome, according to the new research. This leaves men at a disadvantage since they only have one X chromosome. Women have two, so that even when immunity genes are silenced on one the other can compensate, according to research published today in the journal BioEssays. Study leader Dr Claude Libert, from Ghent University in Belgium, said: "Statistics show that in humans, as with other mammals, females live longer than males and are more able to fight off shock episodes from sepsis, infection or trauma. We believe this is due to the X chromosome which in humans contains 10 per cent of all microRNAs detected so far in the genome (genetic code)." Several X-chromosome located microRNAs were thought to have "important functions in immunity and cancer", said Dr Libert. From a biological point of view, the difference has probably evolved because women are more likely to ensure the survival of the species. They need to be able to resist infection when pregnant and when nurturing a child. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
The Trolley Problem

Many thanks to my opponent for a quick fire & enjoyable debate! To summarize, I agree with my opponent that he did not argue that letting 5 people die was murder, I did not either! There deaths would be accidental. I agree that the different to the outcome of switching tracks is the amount of fatalities. These points however are my only two concessions. Pro contends that the decision to not pull the lever amounts to inaction as there is choice not to do so, but also contends this doesn't amount to premeditation. This is somewhat contradictory. Pro has argued that choosing to end someone's life by pulling a lever is not premeditated murder. I disagree in that a decision had to be made before the cart crashed in to the people. For my example scenario, Pro contends it is not the same in that one is an "outcome" and the other prevents death of others. The outcomes for both scenarios are, the sacrifice of an innocent person to change the course of events to favor the people in harms way. I don't get Pro's point or it just doesn't make any sense. The fact that more people survive does not meet Pro's burden of proof that it is morally acceptable to kill someone to achieve that goal. Pro argues it is acceptable to kill a random person to save four more people from accidental harm, if this was correct then we would do this, we don't. Pro has conceded that murder is morally wrong. Pulling the lever will murder an uninvolved bystander. It would be morally wrong, you should not pull the lever!
The Trolley Problem

My opponent has argued that letting 5 people die does not constitute murder, while letting 1 person dies does. Actually, I did not argue that letting 5 people die was murder, simply that the results between switching tracks and not switching tracks are the same, except for the fact that one results in more deaths. Furthermore, switching tracks is not murder, even by my opponent's claim that murder is premeditated. "Premeditated" means "Characterized by deliberate purpose, previous consideration, and some degree of planning." [1] None of these characteristics of premeditated murder are true in switching the train to the other track - it is not a "deliberate purpose" because the trolley driver is forced into that decision by a less appealing alternative. There is no "previous consideration" assuming that the driver did not know the situation would arise ahead of time. The same goes for "some degree of planning." Next, Con argues that the trolley driver is morally blameless in letting 5 die but guilty if he switches tracks, in response to my "inaction is action" claim. In this case, if pulling the lever is possible (which it is), then inaction is choosing not do so, despite a lesser consequence if the lever is pulled. So given these circumstances, either decision is action because it explicitly decides who lives and who dies. The difference is that Con thinks more people should die. Lastly, Con describes a thought experiment which supposedly is the same as the Trolley Problem. While I won't state an opinion on the better option in that case, I will say the scenario does not apply because the 1 person's death actually prevents the death of others, while in Trolley Problem it is only an outcome. Ultimately, this debate comes down to choosing how many people are to die: 5 or 1. Advocating Con is advocating the deaths of 5 people just to avoid the "murder" (which it is not) of just one person. Source: 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Trolley Problem

"But where Con is mistaken is that in this scenario, the results of what they deem "murder" are the same as the results of what they deem not murder; the deaths of innocent people occur whether or not you redirect the train."I would suggest that this is incorrect. Murder must by definition be premeditated. The accident in this scenario is not premeditated and a failure to act would not therefore be murder."inaction is action which results in 5 deaths"These deaths occur because of an accident though, not murder. The trolley driver did not cause the accident so is morally blameless. He could only have avoided it only by choosing to murder a bystander which would have been morally wrong.The morally wrong choice therefore is to pull the lever and save the five. It just does not hold up, especially if we look at it like this:A car is out of control and heading towards a bus que, you can save the people in the que however. To do so you will need to grab the woman next to you and push her under the oncoming car which will definitely make it swerve away from the que.Will you kill the woman stood next to you? Should she kill you to save the que?The answer is clearly that we don't do this in real life because it is wrong to murder random people and that we would be wrongly associating them with events that do not involve them.We can not randomly sacrifice people for events going on nearby, no matter if they change the outcome to something we prefer.Pro's coldly utilitarian approach is purely based on numbers and provides no proof that Pro's moral argument is correct.Historically genocides have also been based on this type of logic.I am amazed Pro is still defending the sacrfice of a random person to save his poor unfortunates stuck on the track!
The Trolley Problem

I agree with my opponent's view that murder is wrong. It wrong because of the death on an innocent person. But where Con is mistaken is that in this scenario, the results of what they deem "murder" are the same as the results of what they deem not murder; the deaths of innocent people occur whether or not you redirect the train. If murder is bad because of the death of innocent people, it follows that the deaths of innocent people are bad, even if not caused by murder. Here's another way of looking at it: if you choose not to pull the lever, you are making a conscious decision for 5 people to die. Is that not worse than conscious decision that only 1 person is to die, and only because there is no better option? Both options force you to make a choice, because in this case,inaction is action which results in 5 deaths! The only difference is some physical movement in redirecting the train. My opponent is actually arguing that the act of redirect a train outweighs killing 4 more people than necessary! It is now clear that voting to redirect the train is a better option not only because it saves more lives but also because someone who chooses not to redirect the train is choosing more deaths over less deaths - that sounds closer to murder than saving lives.
The Trolley Problem

I will briefly state my position. I am shocked at my opponents point of view in that Pro appears to be openly advocating the murder of an innocent bystander. Murder, as I hope we all accept, is morally wrong. My opponent contends that saving five lives from an act of god justifies murdering one innocent person intentionally. That is not to say the five are guilty, but they are in harms way by means of an unintended accident, the one is not. I contend that:To pull the level is to intentionally murder an innocent and morally wrong. To avoid murdering someone you should not pull the lever. Saving others from an accident is no excuse for killing innocent bystanders.
The Trolley Problem

I'll keep my argument short and simple: You should turn the trolley onto the other track because it results in the least number of deaths. Ultimately, you're making a decision between 5 deaths and 1 death. The con argues that 5 deaths is somehow better! I don't have much more to say for now; I'll see what my opponent argues and will have a more elaborate response after that. But basically, if deaths are bad, then changing tracks is the best option.
The Trolley Problem

RESOLUTION If the Trolley Problem occurs, the driver of the trolley should turn the trolley onto the other track. DEFINITIONS Trolley Problem: "Suppose you are the driver of a trolley. The trolley rounds a bend, and there come into view ahead five track workmen, who have been repairing the track. The track goes through a bit of a valley at that point, and the sides are steep, so you must stop the trolley if you are to avoid running the five men down. You step on the brakes, but alas they don't work. Now you suddenly see a spur of track leading off to the right. You can turn the trolley onto it, and thus save the five men on the straight track ahead. Unfortunately, Mrs. Foot has arranged that there is one track workman on that spur of track. He can no more get off the track in time than the five can, so you will kill him if you turn the trolley onto him. Is it morally permissible for you to turn the trolley?" (1) RULES 1. First round is for acceptance only. Last three are for debate. 2. Burden of proof lies on pro. 3. No new arguments in the last round. SOURCE 1. http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

My opening argument is very basic. Assumption 1: Something cannot create itself. Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something. When discussing the Kalam argument, opponents frequently attack the concept of "nothing" by bringing up things like CP symmetry violation and quantum vacuum fluctuation. So let's be clear on what we mean by "nothing." It means quite literally "no-thing." No matter, no energy, no space, no natural laws, no properties. No thing. In light of this, things like quantum vacuums are not nothing, as they still possess energy, space, and other properties. Assumption 3: The universe had a finite beginning. This is important because, if true, it means that no space, time, or matter existed prior to the birth of the universe (re: Assumption 2). With these assumptions, the argument proceeds as follows: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused I welcome Con's rebuttals.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Full Premise: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. "Sound" is defined as "a logically valid argument that withstands all scrutiny." Simply put - if Con can present evidence or argument that successfully dismantles the Kalam, Con wins. Format: Round 1 - Acceptance and definitions Round 2 - Opening Arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals/Counter Arguments Round 4 - Final rebuttals (no new arguments) Con may begin their rebuttal immediately of the following argument by showing that either the argument's form is invalid, the premises are incorrect, the conclusion is incorrect, or the conclusion does not follow from the premises. == Kalam Cosmological Argument == P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused. Universe = All space, time, and matter in the cosmos. Con - let me know if you'd like any changes.
Individuals have no moral responsibility to help others in need

Most of my argument still stands since my opponent didn't directly address my contentions. " Society should be obligated to help the less fortunate because they are, in effect, a product of our own creation." You have given up this debate because you agree that it is society that's responsible for helping the needy, not individuals. Speaking of having morals, please specifically illustrate the source of such qualities. How come we don't feel it is moral to save the dying stars in distant universes? That you're arguing we have a responsibility implies that we owe something to the needy. But what actually do we owe? That the needy have no jobs or suffer from diseases is a societal problem cannot be held accountable to individuals. You can't say because I am sick, you should give me money. In that case, aren't we doing what communism is doing? Assuming that people are poor because capitalists are making money. Also, to define morality as what is right or wrong is a blatant mistake. Just because the South before the Civil War used slavery, was slavery moral in the South? We had the war precisely because the majority of the world believed slavery was immoral. This example tells us that a big part of morality is popular opinion. I mean somebody can be taught all his life that raping is moral. That said, how do you convince him that raping isn't moral? Being affected by your environment shouldn't be the criteria by which you determine something is right or wrong. Thus, the only clear criterion would be utilitarianism. I don't want sources because I want to keep this philosophical.
Individuals have no moral responsibility to help others in need

you actually did talk about moral equality in you first argument, so I decided to retaliate. And no i don not agree with you, I was taught since i was little to help others in need, and it was my moral binding. Now here's my more clear view of where I stand: If someone can help out somebody less fortunate, then it should be their moral right to help that person. When we enter this world and leave this world, it is all the same. If someone in need needs help, then you should try and provide help, if you are fully capable of doing so. If you cannot, then you shouldn't feel guilty about it. If everyone agreed with this moral, then everyone would pitch in, and the world would be a great place. Now people think we don't need to help anyone without incentives because the government is doing it now. We still need follow the words of our heart and help others because we can use that money more efficiently. So people need to recognize this so we can have world wide helping morals. Now here,s the biggest reason to help people: Society should be obligated to help the less fortunate because they are, in effect, a product of our own creation. This isnt an argument just a question. Why no sources?
Individuals have no moral responsibility to help others in need

As a road map, I will first respond to my opponent's response line by line. Then I will defend my own case. "Well, America is falling apart, and the only way to make it better is through private giving." I agree with your view since I also work in a non profit organization. However, making America better has never been the topic of this debate. Ironically, your saying that this makes America better corroborates my argument because this can be an incentive to help others. You're agreeing with my utilitarian point of view. "Further more helping people is another step to fix this mess. Yes people might be sometimes lazy, but what if their job was out sourced to another country?" Just what I said, you agree with me. We NEED to help because there is a disincentive in not doing so. If we don't help them, they will be burden of our economy, commit to crime, and therefore cause turbulence. "Your definition of morality is wrong, here is the real one: *the extent to which an action is right or wrong*. This is from the Oxford dictionary." Thanks for pointing this out, but I intended to debate without sources. My definition might not be accurate according the denotation you have pulled out. However, the dictionary definition fails to define what is right or wrong, thereby failing to define morality. My definition, however, explains that morality is a perception of moral equivalence between two parties. That being said, we can evaluate whether one thing is moral by noting whether it is morally equivalent. "And also I don't need to help someone because their not equivalent in moral standards, you help because you feel its the right thing to do or if your religious a possible calling fro god. Heres a bible take: Hebrews 13:16 "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."' First, I have never said that the people in need aren't equivalent in moral standards. Precisely because they are equivalent, we don't need to fix the balance. Also, please list your reason for feeling that you should help other people, and be specific. To further my argument, observe the example of any number of dying stars in distant universes. We would all agree, tell me if you don't, that we don't see that as environmental disaster. Why so is easily explained: they don't matter! The contrary is true, we should help the needy because we feel that they matter to us. Even my opponent can successfully prove that we don't necessarily treat them as investments, please tell me that helping them doesn't fulfill your christian values and make you satisfied. Now aren't those also incentives? I challenge my opponent to cite a moral action we take in which we have no incentive whatsoever and in which ever form.
Individuals have no moral responsibility to help others in need

Well, America is falling apart, and the only way to make it better is through private giving. Further more helping people is another step to fix this mess. Yes people might be sometimes lazy, but what if their job was out sourced to another country? Your definition of morality is wrong, here is the real one: *the extent to which an action is right or wrong*. This is from the Oxford dictionary. And also I don't need to help someone because their not equivalent in moral standards, you help because you feel its the right thing to do or if your religious a possible calling fro god. Heres a bible take: Hebrews 13:16 "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
Individuals have no moral responsibility to help others in need

Individuals have no moral obligation to assist others according to the theory of morality It is impossible to argue that one has any moral obligation to assist another because one, in so doing, inevitably has an incentive. What is immoral? Adultery, theft, felony, planned murder Why is adultery immoral? Because a wife and a husband have signed a covenant dictating that they shall not seek other companions while in relationship. Therefore, the basis of any form of morality is a perceived contract between two parties. For example, we would say that it is only moral if we spend our money on educating our children instead of using it on buying beer. The implications of morality are deep and complex: first it is tangled with the concept of justice, which is spontaneously spawned at the inception of the children's birth because it is just that the parents raise their children who they have borne to further their genetic identities. Also, it is just that the children's grandparents raised their parents, who have the obligation to do the same. This is moral equivalence. Second, it is tangled with utilitarianism. Another perceived obligation in educating children is that the society needs educated offspring to sustain itself. It is in the parents' economic interests and social interests that when they are old, their children will bear the moral obligation to take care of them both economically and socially. Third, morality is tangled with unjustified cultural beliefs and traditions. For example, women have for centuries been viewed as having a moral obligation to be subservient to men. The sole justification for this is perceived male superiority, and its history of such ignominy. To start this debate Contention 1: individuals are accountable for their charity, thereby creating an incentive for the beneficiaries to reciprocate. If the society were helping the needy, they wouldn't feel obliged to reciprocate to anybody. However, if helped by individuals, the needy have a moral obligation to reciprocate, which makes the benefactors prone to see their acts as investments. Contention 2: Morality requires a premise that the topic lacks. For individuals to be morally responsible to assist others in need, the needy must have completed a moral equivalence to those individuals. For example, we say that knights have obligations to serve their ladies because the ladies have provided marriage prospects and maybe even sex for the knights. Please excuse me for my utilitarian point of view. Also, murder is immoral only because the murdered can't avenge for their own deaths, thereby tilting the balance of moral equivalence.
Abortion

"A person who's existence is known to be beneficial for society is more valuable to society than a person who's value is unknown (because the unknown could be beneficial or detrimental to society). " This is a good point and it is true that it is unknown if the baby will be beneficial for society, however, my opponent is saying that the woman's life is automatically beneficial to society when in fact, her life may be worse to society. By aborting the baby, you will never know if the baby would be beneficial to society. For example, if Obama was aborted, we wouldn't have him as president right now. I think that he is a really good president. I hear people complain because he hasn't done much, You have to consider the fact that he hasn't been president that long. He already ended our current war. It will probably take at least 20 years to fix the damages that the bush administration has done. Anyways, back on topic and on to my next point. "Therefore, I resolve that a woman with a known positive value to society, who's life would be endangered by the generation of life with an unknown value (birth) has the right to abort the generative process in preservation of her own life. " First of all, the woman might have more of a negative value to society then a positive value. Second, it is true that she is risking her life, however, she isn't going to live forever anyways. Third of all, she would be giving birth to a new life in the next generation and also, she would still somewhat live on because the child is a part of her.