BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Torture is justified

I will examine Pro's sources; oddly they support my argument. "If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks" ( . http://www.washingtonpost.com...... ) There is an assumption that Torture works. Let's look at the next source "legal interrogation techniques were equally successful in abstracting information from terrorists and that, through the use of torture, no additional information was gained. Torture is therefore not more efficient in gathering intelligence than other interrogation techniques" ( . http://www.e-ir.info... ) The ticking time bomb scenario is solely based on a possible (unlikely) situation rather than fact. If we could be 100% certain that torturing someone will save millions of people then it would be right to choose a lesser evil, however no-one apart from terrorists are in this position where they can choose to prevent a greater evil. Thus, no ordinary person should have to make such decisions. "killing in combat and self-defence is based on the ground that another person poses a threat to our own survival, and we have the right to defend ourselves. Torture of a detained terrorist, on the contrary, is an act of violence against a defenceless victim, who does not pose an immediate threat" ( . http://www.e-ir.info... ) So, basically we shouldn't treat terrorism like other threats. I don't see how torture can be justified in order to protect human rights (the right to life, liberty and security of person) from terrorist threats by REMOVING some of our human rights such as the right to be protected against torture! Torture is far worse than death! It's bad enough that innocent people go to jail. Innocent people being tortured is a step too far. Surely the government has a duty to protect innocent people, especially from itself first, after all that is more important. Also anyone who carries out these horrific torture techniques must gain sadistic enjoyment, it can't be right to accept that this is okay.
Torture is justified

When we are faced with a major crisis, the necessary measures must be taken at all costs to save the lives of millions of people. Torture is justified," and international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations". http://www.washingtonpost.com... If lives are lost people have the government to point out fingers to so we must do everything necessary to protect them even if a single person has to be interrogated until the life saving information is revealed. Let me also clarify that as the government we dont just torture someone because we feel like doing so. There are several steps to follow and this includes getting clearance from many intelligence agencies and its only when we are over 75% sure that that victim is guilty that we proceed to other interrogation techniques. We dont defend the torture of innocent lives and also the techniques used are faire enough to avoid all the breaching of human rights. http://www.e-ir.info... http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Torture is justified

You are welcome, "The answer in international law is categorical: no. As laid down in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ban on torture or any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute, even in times of war. Along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish, no matter who commits it or where" [1] I believe you when you say torture is a horrible thing, however I don't think you realise just how bad it is or believe you know that the CIA actually tortures detainees. People often think that dunking someone in water and a little sexual humiliation justifies saving hundreds of lives. However this is not what happens. Many people are not aware that the nicer word 'enhanced interrogation' is used in media to replace the word 'torture', and as a result they think the methods used to extract information are better when they are no different. Here are some torture techniques used by the CIA http://www.theguardian.com... Interrogating someone can help a person, but torturing someone can't. If a person who is tortured is released back in society they will bare physical and mental scars, and will hate and fear the people who tortured them for the rest of their life, you may think 'so what, why should I care about them, and if they die whilst tortured it will do the world a favour'. Terrorists don't value life. Torture degrades human life. So you see torture is not the solution to stopping terrorism. Indeed every government has a duty to protect its citizens, and the way they can do this is by acting responsibly i.e. banning torture and thus preventing more extreme attacks in future. The September 9th terrorist attack has no doubt changed people's view on torture, people who fear for their life want to be safe no matter what, and making torture legal might seem in the interest of everyone but it is not. More attacks will result by torturing people. Also anyone serious about causing maximum damage is not going to reveal any information quickly, and by the time any information is extracted from them a new target will be attacked. Sources http://www.economist.com...
Torture is justified

I understand your point of view and thank you for your response. Well you mentioned to say that torture is against the person's will. It's an undeniable fact, but when lives are are stake and there is no other way of decoding information, would you let the suspect go even if you know that they have the information, just because its agains their will? absolutely not. We need to know that the lives of tens of thousands of people are more important than a single selfish individual. The government, has a duty and that duty is to protect their citizens by all means necessary. In a situation of a ticking time bomb torture is undoubtably justified as the only resort in protecting the people who voted for the government. I Know that torture isn't something to glorify.You wouldn't hear someone praising the government for saving lives because they tortured someone behind the scenes . its horrible and painful but I still keep my stance. The person has a choice and that choice is to reveal the information and possibly be let go. The government works day and night in order to insure national security. Thank you
Torture is justified

i) A person who is to be tortured unless they give information does not have a choice. If they hold information on a terrorist attack etc but do not wish to say what they know, they will be tortured against their will. If they reveal "some" information before or after being tortured then the torturer will think he/she has more information but are unwilling to tell and proceed to torturing that individual against their will. Anyone who is tortured will say what they think people want to hear simply to stop being tortured even if it's untrue, what can be found from torturing someone is thus unreliable and immoral. ii) Having good intentions doesn't make something right. ii) The only thing torturing does is to make people outside of America hate Americans and threaten security. People will often do terrible things in desperate situations, but there is always an alternative. People who may impose a threat to national security could be hooked to a lie detector. There is no need to physically or mentally torture someone nowadays. More effective ways to find information exist now
Noahs flood happened

Points on posted video- Turkey never "officially recognized" Noahs Ark, that is simply a falsehood. There is now no acknowledgement from ANY official body that any supposed find on Mt Ararat was the ark, and all so called evidence has been thoroughly debunked. This a quote from Answers in Genesis- A creationist, apologetic site, regarding Ron Wyatt- Are the claims true? If they are, such a staggeringly impressive list would mean that Ron Wyatt had been almost as miraculously assisted by God as the patriarch Moses. If, however, a careful examination of just one or two of these claims reveals them to be false, fanciful or fraudulent, the "divine leading" option evaporates, and it is clear that Christians are being seriously misled.[1] So even other literalist Christians do not believe his claims. Pro can "think" all he wants, but simple math shows that a population of six people, even if they bred at the maximum rate, as did their progeny, could not account for a fraction of the known world population in the years when know events (such as the building of the pyramids) occurred. His claim is that "civilization occurred after the flood". That is a curious claim, as there is at least a thousand years of civilization recorded IN THE BIBLE previous to the flood. Pro puts the flood at around 4000BC. Civilizations existed at that time in China, South America ans Northern Africa. Cultures existed in just about every other part of the world, and left artifacts, paintings etc. Pros contention is that all these civilizations were wiped out, then within a very small space of time, Noah s descendants ( having acquired the physical characteristics of the people who had previously inhabited those regions- paintings and statues of Chinese people from long before that period look- Chinese. Curious that Noahs descendants so quickly took ion those same characteristics), that they took up exactly the same culture as had been destroyed, and that no record or break in culture was noted. This apparently happened in Australia, The Americas, Africa, Europe- It obviously and patently ridiculous. Pro states we should respect the authority of the bible- the flood myth is perhaps the most stark example of why the bible fails in any way as a record of truth, as it clearly didn't happen. Even as a allegory, it is an awful story of a tyrant commuting genocide out of rage- hardly an example to be emulated or worshiped, A Global Flood would have left a myriad of different evidences. There would be clear Gene bottlenecks in species, a layer of unbelievable density of fossils in one thin layer, the extinction of many plant species (Noah didn't take two of every plant, did he?)- non of which exist. It is a myth- it didn't happen.
Noahs flood happened

First point is that civilisations probably existed after the flood also I think the population could take a less than 150 years especially a small population a lot of what he says are assumptions for example he assume that the grow of a population is a constant also he likes to take info from websites and not the source which is the bible. second video He was just talking about the supposed evolution of apes third video I'm going to be totally honest with you I can't understand a what hes on about I could show a video of a credited scientist show how the flood is a possibility or I can show you a documentary about the found ark and how it lines up with scripture short version long version I'll be looking forward to your response
Holistic mathematics proves fate.

I'm not suggesting that we are capable of utilizing holistic mathematics in order to determine our fate. I'm suggesting that the very existence of holistic mathematics disproves the notion of multiple futures and confirms the fact that there is only one possible future. The idea that an organism is an unknown variable simply because it is conscious holds little credence when we look at our ability to map the spread of bacteria, the migratory patterns of birds, and the correlation between predators and prey in terms of population. Our accuracy at mathematically predicting any natural phenomenon falls as the complexity rises; and so I would suggest that all that separates the functions of a conscious organism such as bacteria, birds, wolves and humans from an unconscious function of the universe such as box falling or the orbit of a planet is the complexity in the number of calculations. So if math, as I've demonstrated, is the absolute language of the universe and all of its components, then the conclusion that naturally follows is that the future is predetermined.
Holistic mathematics proves fate.

First I would like to define fate. Fate as defined by wikipedia is a predetermined course of events. Your argument is that the mathematics equations are able to judge how the fate of the universe works. While this argument may be good for non-living beings, it is completely irrelevant to beings of a living mind and conscience. When we refer to fate, we do not refer to the mathematics that predict the next courses of action. Sure we could use mathematics to judge when something might happen and the most probability that something will happen, but we could never be sure. Fate is set in stone and math must deal with the everlasting variables of all organisms. If we try to use math to explain everything about our lives, we would go on to infinity in trying to find all the possible situations. Fate is not various situations, it is one course of events. Additionally, we could use math to determine the state of the universe, but it would be irrelevant to our own fates. Sure we could find out when the world would end based on holistic mathematics, however we would most likely be dead by then. The relationships with individuals determine our fates. Holistic mathematics is too vague of a theory in order for it to matter in our everyday lives. In order to use it, we must calculate every single action in the world. Trying to find fate is futile because the world is constantly changing and we would find ourselves in a sea of variables. Holistic mathematics does not prove fate because fate is ever changing depending on our own situations and states of beings.
Holistic mathematics proves fate.

One of us will come out winning, and the other will come out learning something. :)Mathematics objectively defines our universe in a way no other science has been able to. It can be used to calculate the velocity of a falling crate, the fluctuations in predator-prey populations in an ecosystem, the spread of bacteria and even maps complex interactions such as the minute changes in the relative speed of time for orbiting satellites. This is really only the beginning of the application of math in order to understand the world around us. Fractal geometry has allowed for us to begin to understand the logic behind the structure of a leaf, or a particular formation of clouds, or even the basic structure of the entire universe! ( . http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu... )Considering how such an abstract, minimalist system has defined so many distinctly different interactions in our universe, there is much credence behind the idea that math is the language of the universe. So then why is it that we can't use this language to map even more complex interactions such as the expansion of the universe, the nature or the thought process of a human being? We didn't evolve to understand the infinitely complex universe around us, we evolved to survive within it, and so ultimately, what keeps us from understanding the universe is our limited intellect, and our limited perspective. If this universe operates on the cold hard logic of math, then what does such a revelation allow us to grasp that we couldn't previously? I'm arguing that if we, with our limited grasp and intellect can determine a rough future trajectory of a cannonball by using a simplified equation with low precision, then all that separates our future estimate from what must happen is the complexity and precision of the equation. In that sense, I think of our universe as a multidimensional equation of seemingly infinite complexity being executed. We're incapable of predicting the future because the math that will define the future is so ridiculously beyond our ability that we can barely perceive its existence.
Free will and god... either Free Will doesn't exist or it favors evil and hate

You know what, please don't reproduce, stupidity is hereditary. I think its time for the gloves to come off and destroy this 50 year old, triggered scrub once and for all. You conveniently glossed over ALL BUT TWO of my counters. Its also nice how even the two you decided to grace with your presence, destroy your arguments. You can't accuse me of not addressing your videos when I clearly did, "I did indeed watch the videos. I did not address them because they entail your entire argument basis." Also, you are so hypocritical. Accuse me of not reviewing your arguments, but then skip 95% of mine? I call bull crap sir. And, let's be honest. My 8 year old brother has better insults than you. I mean really, teeny bopper? Though I will admit, I lost it at Jesus Jujitsu. It wasn't an insult, but it was hilarious. Conclusion. 50 year old man loses an online debate to a 14 year old and throws as tantrum. I gave you three chances. But you got three strikes. If it was fun to watch you slowly go insane this long, I wonder what round 5 will look like. Should you show up that is.
Free will and god... either Free Will doesn't exist or it favors evil and hate

Well I decided to read your first statement and the fourth. 1. Now its not the same thing - is it? Nope. In fact its not even close. But you thinking as a teeny booper, what can one expect? 4. Since you flat out lied to me, um no you did not watch the videos prior to me tell you to watch them in RD2 and you fricken know it, that makes you look like toilet dust being scraped from your bootsauses that you mix to get you a full fledged symphony to strike up a new jesus jujitsu. You must think I dumber than you for me to not know that you are not lying.Not only that but with your monstrous ego, just like YOUR god who you cannot even prove even exists with his superior ego complex, if you could debunk the videos, you would have done so to prove me wrong and you correct at all costs. So why haven't you? Its because you can't and you know it. If you and I were to play a game of poker, I'd take all of your chips before you were to even sit down to the game. You are a pathetic teeny bopper compulsive liar, and oh yeah I do know when you are lying, so on that basis alone, we're done. You blew it so badly in RD2 that I am so far above you, a lot more edumacated and intelligent and smarter than a teeny bopper like you who thinks he knows it all, when in fact he truly knows nothing, yet he tries to pretend he has the cure for cancer, and my time is simply far too esteemed and valued to be wasted upon a self righteous empty womb like you. Had you shown the slightest bit, just the slightest bit of intelligence and or an education rather than faking it and NOT pretending that you have the answers, AND NOT FLATLY LYING AND INVENTING EXCUSES when you fricken 100% know that you did, a debate may have been possible. ConclusionLie all you want. I'm not as stupid as you to knowingly do it and thinks he can get away with it. There's no way that you have any genuine friends just like sooooooo many christians and sooooooooo many here. What do I mean by genuine? Those that will go way way wayyyyyyy out of their way to help you out in time of dire need and never ask you a single question. For that I can't even pity you. But you did it to yourself. And unless you knock it off, you will go friendless and loveless for the rest of your miserable stinking life. And you will die alone. You had your chance. You blew it. Bye.
Free will and god... either Free Will doesn't exist or it favors evil and hate

I'm sorry, but if you wanted a real debate on this issue, you would give real and solid arguments. Not random personal attacks. I have nothing to apologize for. There were no excuses or lies,(at least in my points,) and I do sincerely wish for a true debate. If not, you van continue to ramble on incoherent sentences until people vote on round 1. I do also wish to see you read a bit of the Koran and bash Allah too. He's much worse than my Christian God. Good luck should you start to use your brain on this debate.
Free will and god... either Free Will doesn't exist or it favors evil and hate

You are thus far not worthy of my esteemed and valued time. If you can guess why, and thus apologize and rightly and justly so, then there might be a chance for a genuine debate beyond this round. If not, then there's a 0% of a chance of a debate and I'm not even going to bother with a punk kid like you who knows nothing and CLEARLY WITHOUT QUESTION had to invent excuses and flat out lie and thus pretend he knew what in the flying pregnant fetus screw he was squawking about in RD1.
Free will and god... either Free Will doesn't exist or it favors evil and hate

Hello, and I accecpt your debate. Throughout your,arguments," you essentially say that if God is good, he would force his people to do good. Quite frankly, that is not true. We all know how God created the universe in the seven days and all of that. But, what some seem to misunderstand, is that Earth was supposed to be in all actuality, another heaven. That's where,"the lion may lay with the lamb." comes from. The only thing that changed this is the original sin by Adam and Eve. They blatently disobeyed their God who created them their own heaven. Ten that's when man, and man alone,(God knows what sin is in a different way. He does not commit it.,) knew sin. That's where your example of the little girl and her father comes into play. God only allows it until Judgement day. That's when if you have repented and asked forgiveness for your sins, you go to heaven. To get there, you have to say sorry for your evil. An evil god would want the opposite. If a father does that to his daughter, that is an obvious sin and is evil. The girl does have free will. Having free will is not the same as having an opportunity to escape. That argument holds no weight. You also bring up he 10 commandments. I'd say these rules are fairly straight forward. Don't kill people. Don't cheat on your spouse. The Commandment on killing does indeed protect children. Your logic is riddled with fallacies. These sound quite reasonable to me. You also brought up the Bible says punishments include stoning, might I say these are in the Old Testament. Christians are supposed to follow the new testament. That is the word of Jesus,(and whether you believe or not, he did exist.) Jesus' sacrifice fulfilled the debt for the original sin. The Old Testament in whole, doesn't matter. You bring up the argument of suffering. I.e, autism, disease, etc. But, that is all natural suffering. Something that would happen with or without a God. The same goes for man against man suffering. We do that to ourselves, not God. I don't know why you seem to hate God and his followers, but you are wrong in nearly every way. Your whole stance balances precariously on straw man arguments, particularly in the free will of God himself. I hope you begin to see this. But thanks for the challenge.
Weed should be legal and also for cancer patient .

I feel stupid for missing my last round. I'm sorry. But in conclusion. I think I speak words of wisdom. The pharma industry has produced a prescription drug that is derived from THC, thus poking holes right in argument that "smoking marijuana has medicinal properties." Furthermore, weed is currently the number one most abused illegal drug in this country, and through numerous studies aptly defined as a "gateway drug." Viscerally speaking, allowing a greater access to a drug that ostensibly leads to more drug use is never a good idea.