BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muhammad Ali is the best heavyweight boxer of all time

While it may be difficult to argue against Muhammad Ali being perhaps the most renowned athlete of all-time, it is possible to argue about who is the greatest boxer of all-time. And such is the topic for this debate. With that stated, I believe the great Rocky Marciano is the greatest boxer of all-time. There is no doubt that this debate has been on going for over 40 years, and may this debate rage on forever because it is important that people never do forget these two boxing legends. While Ali brought almost incomparable speed and deception to the sport of boxing, it was Marciano who defined the term "fighter". Marciano was a power puncher who refused to be out fought, and he proved this with an unprecedented 49 straight wins, 43 of which coming in the form of the knock out variety.
torture

I agree with your statement 3 that torture can give psychological damage to someone but I strongly believe that psychological damage is partially from physical and/or mental damage of someone"s. Also, I am talking about at utmost situation where torture is needed. Like I previously mentioned in my statement 5, let"s say that New York City is in big danger due to an organization of terrorism. What if an organization of terrorism is trying to set a nuclear bomb in NYC? If the person being tortured is from that organization who is trying to harm Americans and possibly kill millions of people, then torture is morally acceptable because it is the only way to find opportunities to save innocent lives. The September 11 accidents are remember by all the Americans. It doesn't matter if you were born before year 2001, or not because Americans learn about the day because it was such a cruel and tragic terrorism, and undesirable event happened in years. Is it right to not capture one of the terrorists and torture him? I must say that torture is necessary because it is very important to keep in mind that American lives matter and we should stop the terrorism if it's possible. Almost 3,000 documented American deaths were announced. There could be hundreds of people who are missing and undocumented, which means that there is higher chance of more deaths on September 11, 2001. Another hazard at Boston Marathon happened last year, 2013. On April 15, there were bombings at Boston, MA. Records show that there were 3 deaths and over 260 people were injured. The bombs exploded about 12 seconds near the finish line where many families, and friends were cheering for the runners. Two brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were in charge of this explosion and Tamerlan Tsarnaev deceased the day of bombing and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured and is at The Federal Medical Center in Devens, Mass. The terrorists are all over the place; if the torture is not the right way then what do you recommend? It is already hard to see many innocent lives die due to accidents like the September 11, 2001 and the bombing at Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. These cases are the utmost situations that the torture is minimally allowed. Once again, torture is minimally, morally acceptable because our people's lives are more important than the cruel criminals' lives.
torture

I assume any premise of mine you do not directly address will be accepted as true, and any premise of yours you dont not revise will be taken as irrelevant. (1.) I do not agree with your definition of torture, Merriam- Webster"s Definition of torture is "something that causes mental or physical suffering : a very painful or unpleasant experience". (2.) Torture does not always lead to ones will be broken but it does always lead to some form of suffering (3.) Some victims of torture have been so psychologically damaged that even after being released they can no longer function as a normal adult. (4.) I do not feel this statement is necessary in deciding whether or not torture is minimally morally justifiable. (5.) Torture is never (6.) This definition of "morally justified" is too vague. (7.) I do not know what is the "it" you are referring too here (8.) Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights says quite simply, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."; There are no exceptions to the declaration of human rights. (9.)To torture someone is to treat them as if they are less the human; to treat someone as if they are less than human is never morally acceptable. (10.) Therefore, some cases of torture are not minimally, morally acceptable. Controversial Premises 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Premise 1 is controversial until we can agree upon a definition of torture. 2 If torturing someone does not lead to them giving up the information the torturer is looking for that persons will has not been broken, yet they have still been tortured. 3 If someone"s will has been broken through torture the victim may remain psychologically damaged for the rest of their life. 4 I feel as if this premise fall within the definition of torture and does not need to be regurgitated. 5 the excessive use of statements within this premise makes your point unclear. 6 Please expand on this idea. 7 I can assume this premise addresses torture as the "it" but I would like to be sure this is the case before moving on. 8 Again, the use of several statements has clouded the original point. Non-Controversial Premises 8 9 10 Questions/ Comments In regards to premise 6 please redefine "Morally Justified" In regards to the idea that torture should be used in emergency situations, Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights says quite simply, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. To torture someone is to treat them as if they are less the human, to treat someone as if they are less than human is never morally acceptable. The effectiveness of torture must also be brought into question.
torture

(1.) Torture is the intentional infliction of physical and/or mental suffering on someone without one"s permission. (2.) In minimal sense, breaking one"s will causes one to abandon autonomous decision-making in relation to some narrowly circumscribed area of their life for a limited period. (3.) Minimal torture is that in the former case the victim"s will is broken only temporarily and in a contained manner, and their consequent humiliation is limited. (4.) Torture targets autonomy itself, and seeks to overwhelm the capacity of the victim to exercise rational control over their decisions. (5.) In extreme emergencies situations, extreme emergency is when any innocent person(s) is in danger such as nuclear bomb in a city, etc. (6.) Morally justified is having ethical and right decisions or behavior. (7.) It must be accepted in some cases such as to gain information, and/or to terrorise some political group to save the guiltless lives. (8.) Torture should be done in the utmost emergencies to save the innocent lives. In one case, the car thief was trying to kill an innocent infant and the police believed that torture is the right thing to do because the thief from this case is known for his wrongness actions, so something must be done in order to stop him before more innocent people get hurt or get murdered in the worst incident. (9.) Therefore, some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
torture

To begin with the definition of the torture, what makes you think that your definition of torture is more accurate definition? I don"t see how your definition is better than what is I have written down. The first half of your number 2 is restating what I have stated earlier. "You claim torture is related to breaking one"s will" Yes I have said this and you just restated that "Torture does not break one"s will but apparently one"s will must be broken in order to gain a confession." What is the difference here? The major idea is the same: breaking one"s will. I strongly believe that the torture is needed minimally and yes I mean it by breaking one"s will to gain any information/confession from the terrorists. I believe that is how ONE individual thinks. However, just because one person says that torture is ineffective, it doesn"t mean it"s ineffective to everyone else's. Why do you think that torture exist then? It would be useless to even start with if it did nothing. I don"t find it necessary for me to follow up with your story on this because this is not real factual event. I can make any stories of how torture can be used. I prefer realistic examples. Also there are other ways other than torture that can be used. Do you really believe that torture was necessary for this case? Is this situation of torturing an alleged kidnapper minimally, morally acceptable? Please give me a practical situations. How is my statement number 4 unnecessary? Will you explain why? If you are not so pleased with many definitions with examples and explanation that I have given, what are your definitions? What are your definitions torture? rights? morality? terrorists? etc. Of course torture should not be the first thing that should be used in any crimes. The United Nation are the peacemakers of the world. The torture happens and I believe it will continue to happen in the future because the world is not a peaceful any yet. Yes many non-organizations such as UN tries to make the world peace, but then, why are there protests, a racism, wars, bombings, terrorists, etc? Comment: You need to check on your spelling errors.
Is celebrating a birthday is worthy or not

Well then ur welcome on topic My self talach sumer i m a boy Plz first intorduce ur self for counter my intro Plz respect the debate its worship Lets get start I m in opposite to celebrate birthdays Its very annoying very time consuming and last its just a memory to offer as pleasure. Their r thousands of birthdays people have each day, If they start a fund raser program to donate necessary things on there birthday rather than celebrating it at home, Mall, Part etc. . . My opinion is physiology un denyable that a person, Why have to start it ending sequence with such a joy. Just like a sucide. My contender on ur regard which side u choose its on u. Then plz end these with a better and good things. Make me to know why is the reason to start celebrate the birthday its not a big deal at all?
Pi should be replaced with Tau.

The formulae C=2πr and A=πr² are very seldom used in the same context, and experienced math practitioners do not get the two formulae transposed--r² obviously gives an area, and r with no exponent obviously gives only distance. The alterntive would be C=τr and A=(τr²)/2. A complicating fraction is introduced to the formula for A with translation from π to τ. But of course that wold be the least of the problems. Any time mathematical terms are translated, a potential for blunders is introduced, and the extra blunder vulnerability is roughly proportional to the number of mathematical steps [1].[1] WL Oberkampf et al. "Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics," Appl. Mech. Rev., Sept 2004.
Pi should be replaced with Tau.

Thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate. (1) pi – the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It is equal to 3.14159 ... (2) tau – proposed to be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. It is equal to 6.28318 … Circumference of a circle is currently defined as 2πr, whereas area of a circle is defined as πrï¿½. Similarities of these formulas easily result in transposition of the numeral 2, providing vastly different, and potentially dangerous, results. The use of a separate symbol for circumference reduces the possible incidence of errors. Scientific calc apps for Android™ and iPhoneï¿½ are easily updated.(3) (1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tauday.com... (3) http://tinyurl.com...
Pi should be replaced with Tau.

I presume that "tau" is "2*pi" or 6.28... (http://math-blog.com...). The proposal is based on the point that it is confusing to some that one whole circle is twice pi radians and a quarter of a circle is half of pi.However, the costs outweigh that benefit, because (1) the transition would last for decades (or even centuries), and it would greatly complicate mathematical language, i.e. no button on current scientific calculators for tau. Students and professionals either need to learn that the angle of a circle is 2*pi or they'd be confused and prone to human error by conflicting mathematical language. Mistakes beween pi and tau can sink ships and disintegrate space crafts (ie Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap).
Anger Can Be A Good Moral Motivation

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that you understood Aristotle if you are attempting to tell me that anger is a sub-emotion. Aristotle revers to anger as a virtue in which is strengthened through training and practice. As for what you say about anger ITS POSSIBLE that you can not be paying attention and still become outraged. Anger is a vile and uncontrollable emotion as said before, in no way does it do as Aristotle says which is "Add to our virtues". There are no specific and necessary conditions to which make anger arise because it is a rampant emotion in which ones own self does not control. IT ITS IRRELEVANT that anger may be helpful in achieving goals due to the fact that it always does not produce the same result. Anger wild like that of animals, in which reason does not play a part. If an emotion works in a way in which it follows just a bit of logic it then can constitute itself as not being anger. To use anger in strategy and in a way in which it is controlled is impossible, if you believe that to be the case, then anger is not the emotion you speak of.
Anger Can Be A Good Moral Motivation

IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY POSSIBLE that it was worded incorrectly and you could not process what you wanted to produce in your argument but I shall let that slide. An individual who feels anger from a wrong that is done to them still has to know what the underlying issue is at hand since it is a sub-emotion to another issue at hand. Here is a little quote from a friend I know called Aristotle. "Righteous indignation is a mean between envy and spite, and these states are concerned with the pain and pleasure that are felt at the fortunes of our neighbors; the man who is characterized by righteous indignation is pained at undeserved good fortune, the envious man, going beyond him, is pained at all good fortune, and the spiteful man falls so far short of being pained that he even rejoices." Let's break this down for you, if one is not outraged, one is not paying attention. If one witnesses someone else suffer undeservedly, that ought to madden one. Something inside has to click and let one know that they feel anger and that will motivate one to do the rightful thing. Anger is a basic emotional operating system, this is a core emotion which goes in hand with fear and love. Anger is an impulse of energy that does give us a tool to use it and be proactive with it. Knowing how the anger works and what triggers it one can see that it is good for them. This helps different aspect in one's life by helping them achieve goals otherwise that they could not achieve by not having anger in control. One can clearly see that this sense that is being used to determine whether it is good or not lies within us. Your argument is IRRELEVANT.
Anger Can Be A Good Moral Motivation

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that Hitler is an IRRELEVANT topic. What I meant by the comment on Hitler, which I wonder if was worded badly or maybe below your threshold of thought processing, is that who is to say anger is used correctly? To each individual their anger feels as though it is correct and of that of good moral worth. IT IS POSSIBLE to use anger as a means of accomplishing a task by moral motivation, but do other emotions not do the same? We have lunacy, which generally makes people go crazy and resort to absurd antics. Much like anger, they can be compelled to do something that they would otherwise not have done. If one is to be under the influence of narcotics or depressants they may partake in activities they otherwise may not have done. This in turn renders anger as an emotion meaningless. Anger does not provide proper judgment and motivation, instead it replaces it. By using anger as a substitute, one may be lead down an uncontrolled path in which does not provide anything good at all.
Anger Can Be A Good Moral Motivation

Hitler being angry at the Jews is an IRRELEVANT concept is wrong since it stated "as he ought " angry with the right things. Anger "IF" used correctly will thrust someone who is thought to be weak or a coward will swiftly change to courage and being able to stand up to something when anger is being disposed correctly. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that someone who is without a standard should always be making the wrong decision when it comes to using anger. Anger is that when someone feels slighted and can use this for awareness of where they are in the context of competition and vault themselves over a hurdle that is presented to them. IT IS POSSIBLE for someone to be praised for being in the right fashion if it is something that is morally right such as stated before one needs to have to proper balance of using this anger for right. Anger is not inherently bad since it is something that everyone experiences on a regular basis. Are you stating that everyone is inherently bad? It is a natural and healthy reaction to become angry when one feels threatened or slighted.
Anger Can Be A Good Moral Motivation

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that we are all born with anger. On which grounds do you base this claim? Are you aware of every though and ability that a human is born with? IT IS POSSIBLE for one to be praised for being angry in the "Right" fashion, but shall we praise Hitler for being angry at the Jews? On what basis does anyone declare anger to be right in any situation? Anger differs between those of men without standard. IT IS IRREVERENT that anger provides positive reinforcement because it has no basis on deciding what is good or bad. Anger is not a virtue at all, virtue needs no vices. You claim that anger can be morally motivating by using it in a sense or bad, again, how does one use anger to distinguish from good or bad when anger is inherently bad itself?
Anger Can Be A Good Moral Motivation

1) Anger is a virtue which one has had in them since birth 2) Good temper is a mean with respect to anger, good temper is placed in the middle position 3)One who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised 4) Virtue in anger can be used properly when all three: excessive, deficient and good temperament are in place. 5) Anger can morally motivate us into a situation if one uses the sense of good or bad 6) When anger is used properly it will provide us with positive reinforcement in what is needed to be achieved. 7) Good temper we oppose the excess rather than the defect, for not only is it commoner, but bad-tempered people are worse to live with.
generalization or specialization

Generalization is important because it is a word. We use words everyday, most of us anyway; therefore, generalizations are used everyday. Generalizations are used everyday; generalization is a word; words are use to communicate; therefore, we use generalizations to communicate. Generalization is important and is used to communicate. Communication is important. Generalization is a grand connection of words. GG is what we use when we say good game. Good, game, and generalization all start with the letter g? Coincidence? I don't think so. Words that start with the same letter are in consonance. Consonance is a literary device. Generalization means to generalize. What does it have to do with consonance? Generalization and generalize are in consonance. Now, generalization is in consonance with any words that start with the letter g. Generalization is also important and is used to communicate; therefore, every word that starts with g and is in consonance with generalization is important and is used to communicate since literary devices are used in literature to improve diction in literature. So, literature can be improved by using any number of words that start with g due to the consonance of words that start with g that are in consonance with generalization. People and rulers and dictators are powerful. Powerful people have many connections. Generalization has many connections. Therefore, generalizations are powerful. To be powerful is to be important and have lots of communication since generalization is powerful and is is important and is used in communication; thus, proving that generalizations are powerful. mind blown
Endangered Animals

Sheep are usually sheared once per year, usually before lambing or in the spring before the onset of warm weather. Sheep with long fleeces are sometimes sheared twice a year. Feeder lambs are sometimes sheared to make them more comfortable during the summer. Shearing prior to lambing results in a cleaner environment for baby lambs. It also keeps the fleeces cleaner. (1) We can always use animals in some way and make them so we are not threat to them. Plus, farmers rightfully own the animals and provide it comfort and only kill it if the animal is meant for food. http://www.sheep101.info...
RESOLVED: when someone smacks their gum or food, he or she should be smacked.

I will remind my opponent that the resolution IS about smackers getting smacked so there for my argument DOES have to do with the debate. also the person could be perfect for the job, but the employer doesn't want a rude smacker at there work. So they don't get the job and they are sad. But they shouldn't have smacked, and someone should have smacked them and would have gotten the job.
RESOLVED: when someone smacks their gum or food, he or she should be smacked.

That is excactly what smackers need, a good smacking. and i'm not saying that they need to be cut or beaten, just a smack, to get it through their little heads that they are being disgusting and VERY VERY rude. Say that your are at a lunch interview with the manager or owner of a company you really want to or need to work at, and when your food comes, and your chewing it with your mouth WIDE open showing everyone what you are chewing and letting them hear the noises of spit and food all mixed together being chomped by your teeth and sticking to the inside of your mouth and getting unstuck my your tongue. not a good sight to see when you are thinking about hiring someone for a job. It doesn't show that you have good manners.
Drug Testing on students in extra curricular activities

In professional athletics, they drug test people to weed out cheaters. If you are drug testing student athletes for the same reason, the kids who test positive don't need a drug test, what they need is therapy. Also, what drive is there to use steroids in middle school or high school? There aren't many scouts that come to watch say, a tennis match, and you don't compete for money. Plus, why should those who come out to join the yearbook club have to take the same drug test as an Olympian?
Drug Testing on students in extra curricular activities

I would not say no student. People in my high school have been tested and they came out with being full of drugs like steraroids. Those students were the best of the best of the best. They were disqualified. It's unfair to the people who try their best, yet be defeated by the students who take drugs. There is a lot of news of people being disqualified, plus students shouldn't use drugs in the first place.
Drug Testing on students in extra curricular activities

Drug testing is important. If people in sports didn't get drug tested that would be unfair to the other contestants/athletes. With taking drugs you have an advantage. You get a boost in your energy. Also it is illegal to take drugs when you are in athletics. If you participate in any athletic activities you need to be fair. There is a lot of news going around that athletes who win every race or what ever took drugs they lost all their gold metals and their whole carrier went down the drain.