Question:
The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:

A creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible. [1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position.

[1] Savage, C. 1967. "The Paradox of the Stone". Philosophical Review 76(1).

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:

Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense.

[1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

[2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

Atheism does not seek to explain the origin of the Universe, life, etc.; that is what science is for. Atheism is about the existence of God. The atheist position is supported, however, by the fact that there is no evident design in the Universe. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity in the Universe can be attributed to natural processes; the Universe, stars, and life are all the product of physical and chemical interactions. There is no mystery in the basic process. Complexity can be shown to arise from less complex conditions without aid of intelligent agency. Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. The complexity of the Universe does nothing to support claims for the existence of a deity, but rather showcases the wondrousness of the natural world.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism:

In a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other. [1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is.

[1] Hume, David. 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (2008).

The rational position in the absence of positive evidence about God is not agnosticism, but atheism. While there is always a degree of doubt in every statement, this does not mean that negative claims about an entities existence can never be made. One can rationally state that fairies do not exist, even if there is no positive evidence for their non-existence. The very fact that no evidence exists for the existence of fairies, in the same way there is no evidence for the existence of God, is evidence of the negative. Thus, in the evidence of positive evidence for God, the rational default position is atheism.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist it must be caused:

Every human, every being, every object in the Universe is a finite and contingent being. These all have causes, yet a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Humans are born, stars form from gases, even the Universe had a beginning 4.3 billion years ago. Nothing in the Universe causes itself. In order to escape the logical impossibility of the infinite causality loop it is necessary to posit the existence of an uncaused cause. This cause exists outside of the Universe, as it is cause of the Universe. [1] Without a creator, the Universe is a logical absurdity. Atheism cannot provide an alternative explanation to a creator, and thus fails quite literally from the beginning.

[1] Craig, William Lane. 1979. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan.

If everything has a cause, then so too must the creator. Trying to place the deity outside of the spatio-temporal realm of the Universe is not a good argument, as nothing can be said meaningfully about what is “outside” the Universe, since we cannot observe or detect it. [1] Furthermore, saying God, or a creator, is uncaused and always existed is a poor argument because again this cannot be verified in any meaningful way. Irrespective of these problems, however, the argument falls down because it presupposes that the Universe has a cause, which is not necessarily the case. The very notion of causation is built into a temporal understanding of physics, which may not have been the case in the “pre-Universe”. Atheism can survive in the presence of science, theism cannot. If theism cannot survive, then neither can the agnostic middle ground based on the plausibility of theism.

[1] Mackie, J. L. 1982. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Each man has a right to private property

The right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an "own" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own1/2.

1 Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011

2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.

Under capitalism property is privatised under the presumption that it will not harm anyone or even that it will benefit everyone. This is not the case and what actually takes place is that property becomes concentrated into the hands of a relatively few well-off people leaving the rest more or less without property. The capitalist's bargaining position is far superior in comparison to the worker's (since he is a capitalist) and he can use it as an advantage in order to concentrate wealth for himself. If the capitalist has everything and the worker nothing it leaves the worker with nothing more than the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. Even if the capitalist offers the worker a salary on which he can survive (in comparison to unemployment a salary on which he can survive "makes him better off') it is a forced contract out of necessity from the worker's part1/2. Consequently private ownership is by no means on par with the possibilities of owning goods in common and is thus contradictory to the capitalists premise of not harming others3. Capitalism makes the majority more dependent on a minority than they would have been if property were shared.

1 Marx, K. (2010). On The Jewish Question. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 17, 2011

2 Marx, K. (2009b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Preface. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2011

3 Cohen, G. A. (2008). Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 11, S(No. 1), 5-23. D. Reidel and Felix Meiner. Retrieved June 9, 2011

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The capitalist society enhances personal freedom

The Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional "fortunate circumstance" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.

1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011

2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011

Capitalists often disregard the fact that people, although being individuals, also are formed by their social circumstances 1/2. People's class belonging, sexuality, sex, nationality, education etc. have a major impact on people's opportunities; there might be cases of individuals achieving the American dream like Barack Obama despite their social background, however this is not applicable to the majority of people. In capitalism the people with the most opportunities are usually the people who have the most capital, take the example of university students: universities in many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom charge students high tuition fees, if one is not wealthy enough to pay for these fees the likelihood to continue into further education is much lower (if a loan is provided one would have to risk to be indebted for a long period of one's life, or not have the opportunity to study at university at all)3. This can by no means be called an equal opportunity for everyone. It is not enough to provide opportunities; people must also be in a position to grab them.

1 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi : hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet. (S. T. Olsson, Ed.). Falun: Wahlstr

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The market should determine the price of products and services

A free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated1/2. This is all part of what could be called a "dynamic capitalist system" which values individuality (honing your basketball skills), rewards ability (having basketball skills) and risk-taking (risking that you will succeed with it).

1 Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011

2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.

Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.

1 Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011

2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole

The strongest motivational force a human being can feel towards work is a potential reward for their effort, therefore those who work hard and contribute most to society should justly also gain the most in form of increased wealth (e.g. private property). When work is uncoupled from reward or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who do not work, society as a whole suffers. If those who work will benefit equally as the ones who do not there will be no reason to work and the overall productivity will be lowered, which is bad for society. Incentives are therefore necessary since it increases the overall standard for the whole society in form of material wealth, the fact that individuals are driven to succeed and earns what is rightfully theirs is thus in all our interest. With an overall higher productivity even the worst off may benefit more than they would have if the productivity had been low e.g. through charities etc.1/2/3/4

1 Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2 Bradford, W. (1856). History of Plymouth plantation. Little, Brown and company.

3 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.

4 Perry, M. J. (1995). Why Socialism Failed. University of Michigan- Flint, Mark J Perry?s personal page.

According to Karl Marx work should not be regarded as just a means to achieve a reward in the form of profit, work should (i) be directed to the need of their fellows, (ii) be an enjoyable, meaningful activity which develop human capabilities. In the capitalist system labour becomes distorted e.g. industrial work tends to be monotonous and dulling without any enjoyment at all. People are more or less coerced to work for their survival and accept even the most horrific work conditions; work is only performed on the capitalist's terms1/2. If workers did not have to fight for their survival and labour was directed to the meaningful activity of helping others instead of profit making for capitalists, incentives in the form of profit would be without value. The want to share wealth and material amongst the community is inscribed in the human essence and constitutes meaningful activity. It is not merely possible

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.

By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.

Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim