BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pressing a button that kills a random person in the world for a million dollars is worth it

First off, I need to negate your argument that every chance is small. That is not true at all. Every event in the universe has a probability. Flipping a coin one thousand times, odds are that you will get heads about 50% of the time. That is not a small chance. That is just one of many counterexamples to your completely false statement. But I guess the debate is turning to the question- which is more important, the wellfare of all humankind, or the wellfare of just one's self. You say that everyone has the inalienable right to life, but if everyone has this right than why do civilized democratic nations go to war to kill people. The answer is to save the lives of a larger number of people that would have died otherwise. I think if you were put in a situation where you were forced to either kill one family member or friend or your entire family and all of your friends, you would choose to kill just one person. Any moral person would probably agree with this. The difference in my hypothetical situation is that the choice is kill or don't kill. In the above example, it is kill or kill. In the above example, you don't have to live with as much guilt because you did not have a choice to save a life. But the results are the same in both cases. I don't think you can argue that one million dollars can save more than one life (At least the probabilities that it can are well above 50%) So at first look, it might seem like a very immoral thing to do, killing a person for one million dollars. But if the intention is good and the results are good, then what is so immoral about it. You might answer, the means- killing a person. But we do have the power to see into the future in a way. We can predict outcomes based on probability. This is a fact that cannot be argued. Roll two dice 30,000,000 times and i can guarantee that 7 will be the most popular sum of the two dice. And if we can be sure of the end result and the benefits outweigh the consequences, then what is so immoral about killing a person for a million dollars?
Pressing a button that kills a random person in the world for a million dollars is worth it

One, if you would save lives with the money, you wouldn't be immoral enough to kill someone. Two, what happened if you killed yourself? Three, what happened if you killed one of your parents (and one was already dead) Four, what happened if you killed someone very important in the world, like MLK JR. and then you screwed over a lot of people One. You use teh argument of utilitarianism. Read Robert Nozik's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" HE states that you can not take any of his unalienable rights to save someone else. Even multiple people. He says that is his choice. If you are so utilitarian. Kill yourself for a million dollars and donate of of it. Then you violate no ones rights And life is an unalienable right that can not be taken away says our Constitution. Two. You said the chances were small. But isn't every chance small? What are the chances the one time I need something, I forget it. Three. Look at two, Four. MLK JR was an example. You could kill Oprah. Then you just hurt a hell of a lot more starving kids in Africa. You could kill our next president. You could kill anyone of the influential people in the world. But I think my point still stands. What gives you the right to violate someone's unalienable right to life?
Pressing a button that kills a random person in the world for a million dollars is worth it

Number one, the chances of killing yourself or a parent or someone important are very slim (less than a one hundredth of a percent). Also, MLK Jr. is already dead, so I don't have to worry about him. Yes, a million dollars really can save lives. Have you ever heard of loan sharks. People in Africa are dying every day because they don't have enough money to buy food and the only loans they can get have to be paid back with excessive and unproportional amounts of interest. Thinking like a utilitarianist, every life is equally precious and i believe that by pressing the button, i would be making the world a better place because I can donate the money to charity and save lives.
Pressing a button that kills a random person in the world for a million dollars is worth it

I am assuming this is a joke debate? So a thing that can kill a random person for a million dollars is not worth it Why? One, if you would save lives with the money, you wouldn't be immoral enough to kill someone. Two, what happened if you killed yourself? Three, what happened if you killed one of your parents (and one was already dead) Four, what happened if you killed someone very important in the world, like MLK JR. and then you screwed over a lot of people
Pressing a button that kills a random person in the world for a million dollars is worth it

The number of people that a person knows personally is on average 1,000 people. This means that the chances of the person being someone you know is one in six and a half million. The average number of people that a person knows impersonally is around 4000, still a very small percentage of the world's population. In fact, the chances that killing a random person will affect your life in any way is one in a million. With millions of people dying a day, what does one more person matter. Think about how many lives you could save with a million dollars. Also, think about the sweet pad you could buy, not to mention the gold-digger wife you will wed.
Removal of humanities from undergraduate program/ real debate

1. humanities should be kept around because post graduates have seen rises in their salary and this most likely has to do with the demand amongst jobs in the economy. 2. Humanities will forever be important because it teaches students how to describe, evaluate, and change the world and it also puts them in a rare breed of individuals who can speak and also write well. 3. This major not only gives individuals a good work ethic but even more along a good life.
Removal of humanities from undergraduate program/ real debate

1. The removal of the humanities from undergraduate courses would decease a rare breed of people who can write and read well in a economy where this skill is in high demand. 2. The humanities major is important because it teaches students how to describe, evaluate and change the world. Humanities is the liberating way in which this world at a point can be remade. It not on,y gives you a work ethic and good life however gives you the tools to eradicate any issues that come your way. 3. Past graduates have seen rise in their salaries if they are able to use it to their advantage pursuing a career in high demand making them rare. B- Humanities should stay a major in the undergraduate program.
Removal of humanities from undergraduate program/ real debate

1. This is an explanation to your position. 2. Humanities does prepare students to succeed in the working world and promotes a good personal life; the Washington Post also suggest there are many constraints such as lack of properly trained talent, lack of risk taking, "given those constraints, it is hard to believe humanities degree programs are the best way to train America"s most talented students."- Washington Post "We don't Need More Humanities major "http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. According to the Washington Post graduate students in humanities are analytically skilled what students lack is a specified application of ethics or such skills. C~ We can remove the humanities major and develop more specified houses of humanities major.
Removal of humanities from undergraduate program/ real debate

1. I'm against the removal of humanities from the undergraduate program and it is the best way train America's most talented students as said by the "Washington Post." Onpoint.wbur.org 2. Humanities prepares students to succeed not only in the working world but can promote a good life. 3. Looking at post graduate studies mg this major with jobs that are in demand , you'll be a good commodity being that you can read and write well.
Morality can be mandated.

Round 3 - go! I affirm that morality can be mandated. The definition of morality as stated on dictionary.com is as follows - conformity to the rules of right conduct. The definition of mandated reads - a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue. So in other words, the resolution states - You can command/authorize rules of right conduct to act in a particular way on a public issue. This statement obviously rings true because it is enacted in our society every single day. It's called law making or law enforcement. Through the ages and in various cultures, societies have found ways to mandate moral behavior. This was usually done through punishment or implementation of governmental penalties. For instance, in Ancient Rome the penalty for piracy was crucifixion. This was because society (and the parliament/emperor) deemed stealing and theft to be immoral. Therefore, laws were enacted and carried out in such a way that people who acted immorally were severely punished. This was to act as a deterrant; being aware of the punishment would lead people to choose moral behavior or morality over immorality. Today, jail time, fines and the death penalty via lethal injection are common deterrants of immoral behavior. Because everybody has free-will, nobody can make absolutely positively sure that every individual will always make the right decisions; however, they CAN mandate it anyway (authorize rules regarding public issues). In terms of morality, not every issue is black and white - this we know. However societies have found ways to legislate what behavior is deemed appropriate or not, either through democratic process, dictatorship, secular government, etc. Not every culture would agree on what is right and what is wrong, but that is not the issue at hand. For instance, in the United States, laws have been established that keep abortion legal; supporters feel that this is moral because it protects the rights of women (her body, her choice). Clearly not everybody agrees with this position! However we have due process regarding the law that takes into account things like popular opinion and the changing times, and thus the law is upheld and - you guessed it - mandated. There is no mandate that every woman must seek an abortion; however, there ARE laws that prohibit abortion from being unavailable to a woman who seeks it. So as you can see, what a particular society deems moral CAN be mandated. Whether or not people agree with it or abide by it is not discussed in this very limited resolution. Rather what IS discussed is the ability (hence the words "can be" in the debate topic) to authorize or command right behavior. We see this practiced in our every day lives, thus affirming the resolution and my position in this debate.
CiRrO's philosophy and teaching ought to be embraced.

I don't know CiRrO personally, but I have studied his teachings and I believe that there is truth in what he says. I will outline his basic premises. I would really like to see what another member has to say. ****CiRro's Philosophy**** 1) The first absolute moral duty that each member of a society has is to uphold justice, in it's purest form. According to him, a society not built on justice is destined to crumble. 2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good. 3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society. 4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us. 5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome. 6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out. 7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess. 8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it. Power is not power anymore, it is an individual entity, with no real use. 9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil. Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes. 10) The ultimate goal is truth. Truth comes from conflict. Conflict comes from everyday events that may seem petty. Pettiness is a window into a larger view of the world. These are not all his teachings, however those are the ones I remember him telling me. (From Xfire). I believe there is truth in what he says. Do you agree?
Medical research should be prioritize over the welfare of the pateint

"Sacrificing one, to save a million." That is terribly incorrect. We've killed thousands of rats in experiments, let's not treat humans the same. If any doctor experimented on a patient without his/her permission, they should be fired, fined, and tossed in prison. We would kill thousands of patients who need a few chemotherapies so we could try out some wacky thing some random guy thought of. This is real life here, don't mess with the welfare of others: especially if they're sick or dying. I cannot imagine this being worth it. We would be treating fellow humans like lab rats: that's a disgrace.
onscreen keyboards offer no improvement over physical keyboards

"This debate is strictly about the keyboard and its efficiency as a text input device.." This would seem to indicate that you are instead arguing that physical keyboards are easier and more efficient to use in terms of time spent typing and fixing typos. Actually your original statement is as follows: "I would argue that onscreen keyboards, like the ones on iPhone, iPad, Android and other touchscreen smartphones/tablets, offer no improvement over real physical keyboards.." You began by arguing that onscreen keyboards had NO advantage over physical keyboards. However, you have ignored the size factor. I will restate my point that onscreen keyboards leave room for a larger screen view [when the keyboard is not in use]. In your rebuttal, you make the following statement: "If you want to implement an onscreen keyboard that is as efficient as a physical keyboard, you would have to increase the size of the keys in order to make up for lack of being able to feel them, thus increasing the size of the screen/device.." Firstly, the onscreen keyboard does not have to be as efficient as a physical keyboard of the same size in order to have a net advantage. Using the iPhone as an example again, when rotated on its side, the size of the keyboard can be altered to fit different situations. You can have it vertical and have a smaller keyboard when you need to see more of the screen at a time. You can also have it horizontal with a larger keyboard for ease of use of the keys. For other apps, where a keyboard is not required, the keyboard simply disappears, leaving the screen uncluttered. "I look forward to Con's argument to how an onscreen keyboard is more efficient as a text input device than a real keyboard.." I am not here to do that. I am here to show that onscreen keyboards have advantages over physical keyboards, but not necessarily those related to typing speed and efficiency. This includes resistance to water damage, easy coexistence with other touch-screen properties, butt-dialing prevention, alterable size and position of the keyboard, and, of course, conservation of screen space while not in use.
onscreen keyboards offer no improvement over physical keyboards

This debate is strictly about the keyboard and its efficiency as a text input device.. Not the device in which the keyboard is implemented or how it affects it.. But just to respond to Con's argument: The sacrifices that Con mentions has to be made either way.. If you want to implement an onscreen keyboard that is as efficient as a physical keyboard, you would have to increase the size of the keys in order to make up for lack of being able to feel them, thus increasing the size of the screen/device.. Furthermore the onscreen keyboard consumes screen real estate, thus making the screen smaller for the application.. There are many implementations of physical keyboards in which the keyboard folds or slides out, thus not taking up space when not in use.. And all this without taking up screen real estate.. But as I mentioned before, this is irrelevant to the debate.. The inherent purpose of a keyboard is to allow the user to input text.. I would like to once again make the case that a physical keyboard fulfills this purpose more efficiently than an onscreen keyboard of the same size.. It is evident that an onscreen keyboard still strives to match the efficiency of a real keyboard.. It does this by imitating or make it up for as many aspects of a real keyboard as possible: the keyboard layout, "tactile feedback" though vibration and auto-correction to make up for the typing errors which are likely to occur.. One remaining Achilles heel is still that you can't rest your fingers on the keys, but have to constantly lift you fingers while you type, which can become strenuous during a long typing session.. The physical keyboard is the ideal for the onscreen keyboard.. The same can't be said for the opposite.. I look forward to Con's argument to how an onscreen keyboard is more efficient as a text input device than a real keyboard..
onscreen keyboards offer no improvement over physical keyboards

The improvement by onscreen keyboards over physical ones lies in conservation of space and the convenience associated with it. If the iPhone had a physical keyboard, then one of two sacrifices must be made: the iPhone's size must be increased; or the screen of the iPhone must be made smaller. Either of these sacrifices would make a significant impact on the iPhone's ease of use and/or portability. Technically the debate was over the existence of such an advantage, which I have just presented. However, if you would instead like to debate over whether the advantages of a physical keyboard outweigh the advantages of an onscreen one, I would be willing to give you that luxury.
onscreen keyboards offer no improvement over physical keyboards

I would argue that onscreen keyboards, like the ones on iPhone, iPad, Android and other touchscreen smartphones/tablets, offer no improvement over real physical keyboards. . In fact they are really just trying to imitate the real thing, and nothing imitates a real thing better than the real thing itself. . On a real keyboard you can rest your fingers on the keys while they idle, but this is not possible on an onscreen keyboard without accidentally typing something. . On an onscreen you need to keep your fingers lifted over the screen when they are not typing a letter. . So in short muscle usage is way lower on a physical keyboard than on an onscreen. . Not to mention the tactile feedback that a physical keyboard naturally provides. . The fact that you can feel the boundaries of the keys help you from losing track of them. . This is something that onscreen keyboards cannot imitate yet. . One might argue that onscreen keyboards provide spelling correction and other types of intelligent typing aids. . But these aids could just as well be implemented with physical keyboards adding all the inherent benefits of a real keyboard. . The only potential I see for onscreen keyboards is alternative methods for typing whole words i. e. Swype, but I haven't experience any significant improvement in terms of speed, effort and ease of use to a physical keyboard with tab-completion and the like. . I have a (rooted) HTC Magic and a Nokia N810 if Con wants me to try out keyboard apps that might challenge my claim. . . :)
art is needed in todays society

So since my opponent has forfeited his rounds, my extension of my arguments during previous rounds is well justified. Why to vote for con: The instigator presents no evidence for his claims and there is actually evidence against his assertions made in round one. On top of that, there is a fallacy at work with my opponent's opening round. Thus, you should vote for con. With that said, I thank you all for reading. Good night! :D
art is needed in todays society

Greetings. First, I would like to thank my opponent for extending this debate to any member of this website. With that said, let us proceed: In my opponent's opening argument, he commits the fallacy "argument ad baculam" in claiming that all of society will be doomed if it does not involve itself with art. His claim is no more than a scare tactic as there is no evidence to suggest that society will be dommed without art. In fact, the human body needs many things to survive, but certainly not art; the human body needs food, water, oxygen, and nutrition, but it certainly won't be doomed due to the lack of art. The second problem with my opponent's opening argument is that he presents no evidence that art is even needed in order for a society to maintain itself. The third problem with my opponent's argument is that he presents no evidence that art is on the decline in today's society. Not only that, but there is actually evidence against his claim. Both video games and films are important part of our culture. Proof can be seen in the fact that the entertainment is one of the most thriving industries in our society. For these reasons, you should vote against my opponent's case.
"Women" couldn't recognize EQUALITY if it slapped them in the face

2. 1 Because I don't think it's an argument anyone's making. 3. 1 The argument isn't generally that it's unfair women have more chores. Rather, It's unfair women are considered carers while men are considered providers, As a consequence of this attitude women tend to do more chores than men. No one is arguing that individual men are oppressing women, Rather the culture we have favors male dominance and feminists see this as cancerous. 3. 2 The reply to this will be similar to my first one, Individual women who want to leave work to play mommy isn't cancerous on it's own, But the culture plaguing our society of men being providers and women being carers is what needs to be dismantled. 3. 3 I don't understand how you don't see feminists getting angry at this. This is an example of, Again, Women carers, Men providers, And most feminists hope to dismantle this attitude. Obviously we wouldn't get to a 50/50 split (unless we use quotas but I'm not a fan of those), We probably won't get a 50/50 split on anything, But it would be nice to see more men signing up for positions similar to child care. 3. 4 If a man slaps a woman back, I can't speak for most feminists but I wouldn't blame the man in that scenario. Chivalry is considered sexist because it lets men assume the role of protector of a particular woman, And for the reasons I've stated above, Attitudes like this one is cancerous and is, Thankfully, Dying.