BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a terrorist w a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

1. pursuit of happiness also means protecting the milions of lives at risk. utilitarian outlook.... save the most happiness by torturing. 2. we have autonmy of ourselves and that's all we need. if it's the moral thing to do, we could also invoke God. 3. it's the moral thing to do. (which yes means we can invoke God per the last one). why let one person escape torture while letting millions die? let's be proportional about all this. it's not always possible to get information from other sources. somtimes it's the last resort but a necessary reality.
a terrorist w a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

I negate for the following three points of pursuit of happiness, who gives us the right to do this, and the fact that it is immoral. I also negate because I defend the following values. Civil liberties, the constitution, individual rights, and happiness. 1: Pursuit of happiness is protected by the United States Bill of Rights. Our government is going against what America was built upon if we accept this. We cannot allow this to happen. Here is a link about what America is founded upon. http://www.founding.com... 2: Nothing allows us to do this except autonomy. We make the choice to torture people. I just want to point out that torturing people is really low. It is worse than actually killing people. You push them to the brink of death to get something you want. You keep them alive just enough so they feel the pain and will do anything to make it stop. This is horrible folks. 3: This morally wrong. Don't take just my word for it. Read this article! http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... Conclusion: Torture of any kind is wrong no matter what! Please side with me. The pro is saying torture, which is worse than killing, and save lives. I am saying there is more ways to do this. You don't have to torture someone to find out information. Please see that there is another way to save lives without anyone getting hurt. The aff is being too aggresive. I want to see lives saved, but we need to see that we can't stoop to the terrorist's level!
a terrorist w a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

hypothetical. a terrorist has a nuclear bomb in NY city. he says he knows where it is, and that it will explode in a day. all evidence supports that there is a bomb, and that he knows where it is, etc.when i say "torture" i am assuming we might try a progressive set of tactics, rough talk first, then a little violent, then things like water boarding, then full out torture, if necessary.most would argue against this as a matter of 'the ends does not justify the means'. even if we assume that that might be usually true (read, 'proportionalism' v. deontology), we cannot assume it all the time. it would be immoral to let millions die because of your mere thoughts of what's "moral".... it would be selfish, and immoral as a lack of action in doing what is necessary to save the city.i am open to other arguments about why we shouldn't torture them, but i assumed the "ends means" argument would crop its head up, so I got it right at the bat.
Poetry Battle Libertarians vs Liberals

So you choose to call us oblivious but that really can't be serious () Cuz the left has shown that its socialistic agenda needs to be put in the blender , and the liberals with their semi-communistic mind make better novelists than real life communists. . () You think you understand freedom but in your minds it looks like 'feedthem' , And every rationalist is a real capitalist and not some crappy liberal government royalist .() You claim that the government needs power because people cower but is that really true in most instances ? Because if a madman runned around shooting and looting sooner or later he would be put in prison for a good enough reason . () My point about the crack ? its the same like if it was smack , it may be bad for you if you overuse but should we really punish the common use? Wake Up the Quaran don't promote no love or peace rather it promotes terrorism and disease , It doesn't promote tolerance rather a misogynistic homophobic dominance .
Poetry Battle Libertarians vs Liberals

Lemme tell you something, before we beginI'm not super left, not like Stalin or Lenin.But I'm sure of one thing, and it's absolutely true,Most people on the right side, are oblivious of what to do.I understand you want more freedom,And in some ways, that's okay.People who are LGBT,Want to openly be gay.But in other cases,The government must have some power.You can't just run around with guns,And make the people cower.And your point about the crack,Bro, what the hell you talking 'bout?Doing drugs will do no good,Like the crap pouring out of your mouth.And what you got against Muslims?Most aren't violent in the least.If you'd actually researched,The Quran promotes love and peace.Don't be a discriminitory dude,Nobody likes those guys.If you'd done some studying,You would probably be quite surprised.And your grammar bro,Fix it now.I've seen better EnglishFrom the poop that comes out of a cow.I see the points you're trying to say.Oh wait, no I don't.But I suspect the truth isThat when you wrote this you were just stoned.
Poetry Battle Libertarians vs Liberals

Liberals Liberals claim to fight for liberty , But look closely they don't have the ability , Since Liberalism became all about the Tyranny , which becomes funny when you understand the irony , With an ironfirst they try to rule and they think its cool , but by thinking so A liberal is simply A fool and needs to drink some redbull . Don't whine about the corporations they wouldn't exist , since in a free market the government wouldn't even interfere in the capitalistic sphere , Liberals just need to stop to suck and instead they should smoke some crack Since things like Freedom and Tolerance to Liberals mean to use fear and governments . When your protecting Islam its like protecting Imperial Japan , as both of them wanted to expand into the freedoms land and you don't even want them scanned . Now don't get me wrong I don't want to ban immigration rather leave it up to the property owner to decide if he wants to tolerate the frustration , and drug use might not always give you fame but prohobition is giving a rise to the never ending black market division we Libertarians have a different vision .
Dr. Who is Confusing

He counts his years and days he has been alive. It doesn't matter that he does not live those years in the same chronological orde as everybody else, he still wakes up every morning and counts off one more day.There was just the one Doctor from different points on his personal timeline. The older sent a letter to the younger. The older knew to send this letter because he had received it when he was the younger. This does not create a paradox. It does created a fixed point in time, forcing him to send those letters. If he refused to send it, that would create a paradox.The weeping angels create a fixed point in time. They send you back in time, you grow old and die. If the Doctor went back and rescued them it would create a paradox.
Dr. Who is Confusing

I am looking for a new opponent to Debate.org, I am not a very good arguer. The opponent's argument starts in Round 1. I think Dr. Who is confusing because of the time overlaps. How does The Doctor know how old he is, if he is constantly changing time periods. Every time he visits he is a different age, or not born yet, so what does he go by to decide how old he is. And how can there be two of him at one time, like when the eleventh doctor dies and sends the letters to the Ponds, River, and himself. Wouldn't that be a paradox? Rose can't touch her past self, but The Doctor can write to his past self, in the present. And why are the weeping angles so scary? All they do is send you back in time, if you are the Doctor you can find your way back, and if you are a companion, The Doctor will do his best to help.
Dr. Who is Confusing

Imagine a cast-a-way on an island with no calander, keeping track of days by scratching a line on the wall of a cave. I'm not saying that the Doctor makes marks on the walls of the Tardis, but he doesn't have to know that it is Thursday, Ocotber 11, 2012 to know how may days he has been alive.I agree that dating his companion's daughter could be considered awkward, but I don't find it confusing.
Santa Claus Primes Kids For Indoctrination.

You have essentially changed your argument to Santa Clause is a traumatising way of dealing with indoctrination. I am not saying its good for the kid I am saying that Santa prevents indoctrination more than it promotes it. Santa Claus is likely not a healthy thing to present or confront a kid with however it certainly does not promote or prime children for indoctrination. It does the exact opposite as I have already argued. In your final argument you did not address my points you just said its not healthy which was not your initial argument anyway. In conclusion Santa Clause is likely not healthy, But it still teaches children not to blindly trust authority resulting in less indoctrination and not more regardless of its developmental negatives.
Santa Claus Primes Kids For Indoctrination.

You're being far too simplistic about this. You're not merely lying to them. You're lying to them in an extremely harmful way. You just admitted that there are probably better alternatives. Then you blindly claim that the santa lie will do more good than harm with no evidence. I have proposed a solid solution. Teach kids skepticism. Why would I do any of that other nonsense when skepticism gets the job done without hurting them? Lying to your kid just teaches them that their parents are liars. It doesn't teach them that a lot of people lie. It traumatizes them.
Santa Claus Primes Kids For Indoctrination.

If you are told something that you believed to be true for a large amount of your life and then you learn you were lied to, Will you be easy to trust something else next time? No you will likely be critical of what you are told and you will be more logical in the ideas that you accept as fact. Sure Santa Claus is not the best way or even an effective way to deal with indoctrination but it will do more good than bad as it teaches children to understand why people tell them things and that they shouldn't accept things blindly. Your point that because its indoctrination they will be more susceptible makes no sense, If you were lied to, You will learn to not accept what you are told blindly. You won't be more likely to accept false truths you will actually be less likely. I can't understand your logic of if you are lied to and you then learn about it, You will somehow be more susceptible to be lied to in the future. People learn from their mistakes, That how children learn they fall and get back up. When they realise their world view was false they will be more likely to think about what they believe in the future making them more likely to not blindly follow indoctrination.
Santa Claus Primes Kids For Indoctrination.

I don't mean to be obtuse, But how do you logically justify that indoctrination leads to less indoctrination. Wouldn't less indoctrination lead to indoctrination. You can't compare Santa to a vaccine. Thoughts don't develop antibodies. It's the opposite actually. Every thought added creates a habit and the habits become more difficult to fix the more thoughts that you add. So by teaching Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Etc, You end up showing your kid a patter of indoctrination and then you insulate it in a bunch of other thoughts. Now it's almost impossible to get those thoughts out because you've buried them. You talk about teaching kids not to trust authority figures. Why would Santa be the best solution for this problem? Why not just TELL your kids not to trust everything they hear. Your logic is backwards. You want to fight the bad things with the same bad things. I'm gonna need something better than that. You said. "This exposure to low level indoctrination at a young age and then the realisation they were not told the truth allows for them to develop better thinking skills in regards to what authority figures tell them. " This is a seriously scary line of thinking and it proves my point that indoctrination is bad at all levels. Tell the kids the truth and they'll be just fine. I'm not putting my kids on the Holiday Vaccine Program as a solution for problems that can be solved in much easier ways and we can do it without indoctrinating them. Would you agree that an alternative where they don't get indoctrinated at all would be better?
Santa Claus Primes Kids For Indoctrination.

It is like a vaccine if you show children a lower level of indoctrination at an early age and then show and tell them why they shouldn't blindly believe things it results in less vulnerability not more. Most children learn that Santa isn't real on their own and when they do they also learn that neither is the tooth fairy or Easter bunny because they realise their world view was incorrect and that they needed to be more critical of the ideas they believed. Teaching someone to question what they are told from an early age results in less vulnerability to indoctrination not more. And its not teaching them that lying is morally right, It is teaching them that not everything they hear is true and that they can't trust authority figures blindly. And it does not make them more susceptible to the idea of trusting the supernatural without evidence it does the exact opposite as they will then realise that they need to be critical of what they are told so that they then can see whether they are being told the truth or not. It encourages logical thought and critical thinking, Perhaps after telling them Santa is not real the parents could go over why they believed that and why the should be more critical of ideas in the future. This exposure to low level indoctrination at a young age and then the realisation they were not told the truth allows for them to develop better thinking skills in regards to what authority figures tell them.
Santa Claus Primes Kids For Indoctrination.

So you want to fight indoctrination with indoctrination? What if I tell my kids that Santa doesn't exist and they don't believe me? True story. My daughter told me that fairies existed. I told her that they were made up and she told me she didn't believe me. I even tried to explain it to her as best and possible and she still believed. Children are willing to believe things on faith especially when they're young. It's important that adults are honest with them so they can have a healthy dialogue. Lying to them teaches them not to rely on their loved ones and teaches them that lying is okay. It also allows them to entertain the idea of the supernatural in the future with no evidence. Because there parents told them that magic was real at a young age and that image permeates in their subconscious. Indoctrinating kids to make them more skeptical is nonsensical. The best way to make kids skeptical is to teach them skepticism. You don't teach a kid to play guitar with a violin.
Santa Claus Primes Kids For Indoctrination.

I would argue that Santa Claus primes children to be inherently insusceptible to indoctrination. Once children mature and they learn that Santa is not real they will then continue to question popular things they believed to be true for the rest of their lives, This makes them more protected against indoctrination as they will not question things they are told. Someone who has been lied to by authority figures in the past is more likely to question things they are told making them more resistant to indoctrination making Santa Claus actually a positive for kids who don't want to be indoctrinated.
U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely.

Sorry. Counter Rebuttal: What I'm stating is the right to bear arms is under the Constitution. The Constitution was that the USA was founded upon. Taking away guns would be unconstitutional and would be against everything the USA was back then. That would go against all of the USA's principles. Thus, there would be so much anti-American. Rebuttal: I think that the people who die are very few. I can't read Korean unfortunately. However the death rate is few. Especially the intentional homicide rate. Also we do respect the minority, there are not lots of non-gang gun fights. The government also recompensates for each gun death.
U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely.

Um, first of all, I need to inform you that you need to right your rebuttals in the 3rd round. But instead, you just wrote in the 2nd round. So why don't you counter rebutt in the 3rd round? Rebuttal: You said that U.S citizens being allowed to carry guns is a protected right, thus, they are already allowed to carry weapons. First of all, I know it is one of your rights (and I wouldn't want to infringe it alright), and that is the reason why I had opened this debate. I think it's time to change that point. If only that law changes there will be no more accidents I have told you. Secondly, the reason why that right is wrong is it doesn't describe the punishment according to assasinating other citizens. If that punishment is described, there will be no coincidence like above. Counter rebuttal: 1. Before talking about my sources, let's talk about yours. Your wikipedia source shows that America has moderate rate of intentional homicide, alright. But it also doesn't show that there are only little bit. And, intentional homicide. There are not-intentional homicides occuring because of the carriage of guns, right? what happened to those? 2. http://dc4korean.com... http://ko.wikipedia.org... http://news.donga.com... http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr... Look, this is all kinds of sources. 3. We should respect the minority, too. You know why? What if people come to those places and make large gun fights? People, would die, and who should their families blame? the government?
U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely.

I will first go to my own case and then to my opponent's case. Contention 1: Carrying weapons freely is already legal in the U.S. 1st of all, I will state that "U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns" because it is a protected right in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon." Thus, U.S. citizens are already allowed to carry weapons freely. Rebuttal: "because if U.S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too" Um, any examples or sources? U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns now and at least 34th in intentional homicide rate by country per 100,000 people. Thus, the U.S.A. has already proven that carrying guns in not as threatening as thought. "For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country?!) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. " Sources? I don't know when or if this happened but just because someone has stress doesn't mean they will shoot someone. Many people have lots of stress and they are not inclined to shoot everyone. This is an extreme case of being over-stressed while having guns. " What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute." No, they can't. We have so much security these days that there are very few guns besides in the few crime-popular cities such as Lose Angeles, Oakland, etc. Thus, guns should remain legal. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely.

Now, I will tell you my arguments. I as the opposition team oppose to the resolution because if U. S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too. For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country? !) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute. Of course they will get punished, but it would be too late for you. Although it can be good since you can protect your selves if you have one, it can be used as a purpose of Assassin. If Americans keep on legalizing the carriage of guns, more and more incidents like those above will happen. It is never too late, so they should illegalize U. S. citizens carrying guns.
Debate is benefit

Pro doesn't seem to know what he is saying. And most would agree that his use of diction and language is hard to understand. If Pro's wish is to debate semantics, then I am open to interpretation as to what the terms mean because Pro didn't specify in round 1. He simply provided definitions of the terms, therefore this debate's interpretation must go to me. Therefore, no matter how Pro wishes to argue semantics, because I have the right to interpretation, Pro must follow my interpretation. To wrap up the debate:-Pro did not follow my interpretation of his thesis. -Regardless of Pro's arguments on semantics, Pro has not proven why Debate is Benefit. -Pro has plagiarised word for word his entire 4th round. -Pro made several spelling and grammar errors. I am aware that I've made a few too, but despite my errors, my arguments are still understandable, whereas Pro's arguments were very difficult to understand. -Pro did not provide any sources to back up his case. At round 4, I even had to provide his own source for him. I provided 1 source that supports my argument that debate is not benefit. *This is more than enough reason to deduct points from Pro for conduct, spelling and grammar, reliable sources, and convincing arguments.
Debate is benefit

PRO HAS PLAGARISED WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SOURCE!Pro has copied and pasted a lot of what he said in the previous round from this forum about philosophy:http://forums.philosophyforums.com...I will even provide a screenshot top prove it. It is word for word copy and pasted. If the image cannot be viewed and only appears as a small icon, please right click on it and left click on open image in new tab. Otherwise, visit the site I provided and scroll all the way down to the last post by a user named "apokrisis". Furthermore, this does not fit in this debate whatsoever!I have provided a source showing how debate is not neccessarily beneficial, yet Pro has not refuted this! This is absurd!