BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
torture should be allowed in justifiable situation, such as military interpretations.

You said: "You must be able to think on your feet inorder to make a false statement that has the ability to put forces in harms way." I don't have to have been tortured to know that this isn't a true statement. Many of our torture techniques are the same ones used by the Communist government of the Soviet Union during the cold war. This is an exerpt from an article written for the Defense Department in 1956 entitled "Communist Interrogation." Keep in mind that this is describing many of the very same techniques we're using today in the war on terror: "The cumulative effects of the entire experience may be almost intolerable. [The prisoner] becomes mentally dull and loses his capacity for discrimination. He becomes malleable and suggestible, and in some instances he may confabulate. By suggesting that the prisoner accept half-truths and plausible distortions of the truth, [the interrogator] makes it possible for the prisoner to rationalize and thus accept the interrogator's viewpoint as the only way out of an intolerable situation." You said: "Utalitarianism isnt a necicary belief in this debate. It is just a possible explination for justifying torture. it is one of many." If it's not a necessary belief for your side, then why haven't you offered an alternative assumption? You seem to be sticking with utilitarianism, so I'll stick with criticizing it. You said: "Utalitarianism says that the suffering of others can be outweight by the releif of a larger quantity of people so your stupid argument is shot out of the sky." Did you read what I wrote? I'm aware that utilitarianism dictates that the suffering of others can be outweighed by the positive benefits to others. But, fundamentally it's about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and obtaining life-saving information without torture produces more good for more people than obtaining it using torture, all other things being equal. You said: "i have said earlier "in certain situations" certain situations that other methods dont work. so torture is the only possible option." It's an awfully big assumption to say that torture is the only possible option in some situations. Torture seems to be the go-to move for the U.S. government right now - we don't seem to be trying other techniques to get information from our prisoners. So how could we (or you) possibly know that torture is the only option in some instances? You said: "Utalitarianism as any other Belief isn't w/out flaws. You could poit out all the flaws you want and for one, it doesnt matter that wont win you the debate." If utilitarianism is a necessary assumption for your side, I think it would certainly win the debate if I could successfully poke enough holes in it. You have yet to provide another belief system underlying your argument, so for now, it's still propped up by utilitarianism. You said: "Two, i can counter almost anything you can say and throw any other belief out the window." Good for you :D
torture should be allowed in justifiable situation, such as military interpretations.

ok lets start with number 1. First off i must ask, have you ever been tourtured? As i cannot say that i have i must however asume that will in torture you do not have the abillity to think on your feet. You must be able to think on your feet inorder to make a false statement that has the ability to put forces in harms way. Now number 2. Utalitarianism isnt a necicary belief in this debate. It is just a possible explination for justifying torture. it is one of many. But as i see it if we pour some water on someones head and they give us information that warnes us of a bomb attempt so we prevent 200 deaths. It sounds morall to me and it meets utalitarianism ideas. Number 3. Utalitarianism says that the suffering of others can be outweight by the releif of a larger quantity of people so your stupid argument is shot out of the sky. To awnser your arg on only possible solution. i have said earlier "in certain situations" certain situations that other methods dont work. so torture is the only possible option. New argument... NUMBER 4 Utalitarianism as any other Belief isn't w/out flaws. You could poit out all the flaws you want and for one, it doesnt matter that wont win you the debate. Two, i can counter almost anything you can say and throw any other belief out the window.
torture should be allowed in justifiable situation, such as military interpretations.

I've got a couple of different levels of objection to your argument, so to be helpful, I'll number them so we can keep track. 1. I don't accept the premise that torture is a useful tool to uncover life-saving information. I believe that torture is useful in obtaining information, I just doubt the validity of that information. To stop the process of torture, it is easy to simply provide false information - perhaps even information that would lead U.S. troops into harm's way. I'm not suggesting it's impossible to get the truth from individual through torture, I'm just suggesting that it can easily result in false information. 2. I'll also counter the invocation of utilitarianism - it is a theory which has many absurd results which most people would find absolutely appalling. If utilitarianism is a necessary assumption of your argument, I'll have a lot more to say about it later. 3. If our goal is in fact to achieve the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, we should be looking for a way to get the necessary information from those held captive WITHOUT harming them. That way the same ends are achieved, but the means don't take away from the greater good. I think that in order for your argument to work there, you'll need to assume that torture is the ONLY way to get certain information - can you defend that assumption?
torture should be allowed in justifiable situation, such as military interpretations.

i9 feel that it is in certain situations just for military personnel to torture inorder to find out life saving information. As a borderline utilitarianism i feel that one person's sufferage can be outweight by the "greater good"/ ending/preventing of sufferage for many people. Also that the ends justify the means. Yes i understand the moral "wrongness" of torture but again the greater good for the greater amount of people.
Stopping immigration from Latin America will reduce our crime rates.

Impracticality of Enforcement The US government already does all that it can to prevent illegal immigration from Latin America. An attempt to prevent any kind of immigration from Latin America will just effect the people who attempt to come to the US legally. In reality because there would be no legal path for Latin American would be migrants any more you would increase the number of illegal migrants due to the lack of a legal route therefore increasing the crime rate. Impact On Agriculture The agriculture industry in the US relies heavily on the cheap labor provided by Latin American migrants [1]. If this supply of labor was disrupted (as it would be by this policy) it would have a dramatic effect on the US agricultural industry. This would drive up food prices and this would lead to both a rise in unemployment (farm businesses driven under) which is linked to higher crime rate and a rise in the cost of commodities which is also linked to a higher crime rate. This would cancel out any small decrease in crime (would likely be an increase) caused by the policy of zero immigration from Latin America. [1] http://www.voanews.com...
Stopping immigration from Latin America will reduce our crime rates.

Increased immigration has been consistently shown to not increase crime rates [1]. Because of this it is almost certain that reducing immigration from Latin America to the US will not reduce crime rates. In fact immigration has been shown to have almost universal economic benefits [2] and economic growth has a tendency to reduce crime [3] meaning that in reality immigration from Latin America probably reduces crime rates. [1] http://thesocietypages.org... [2] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [3] http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de...
Stopping immigration from Latin America will reduce our crime rates.

In 2012 the low estimate of illegal immigrants in the US was a staggering 11 million people. Today, estimates range from 11 million to a more accurate number of 30 million. Of illegal immigrants here, 75% of them are from Latin America. [1]So naturally if we stopped the influx of Latin Americans coming here, our crime rates would be lower.1) http://immigration.procon.org...
schools should allow kids to play video games at break

Bullies can still attack a child on the side of the room, not interacting with peers. In fact, they are more likely to do so, as bullies almost always target the alone and defenseless, which a person playing on the computers would most definitely be both. Besides, bullies may attack the kid (for being fringe) outside of school, or may torment him at any other time during the school day, because he is so CLEARLY the out group, whereas if the child was intermingled amongst other children, he would be a harder target. And I agree that wanting to beat someone (comptetition) is a positive trait, but the amount of aggression and comptetition after playing video games is drastically increased to levels that only make cooperation all but impossible, which is also an important skill. Even team based games have relatively little teamwork, and rely mostly on the player themselves. Also, just because a child may someday, in the future, win a contest to earn modest fame does not mean that it is a justification to add thirty minutes onto the gaming schedule. Or, if you are talking about a contest within school, either mediated by the teachers or the kids themselves, there is little fame to come of that, and it is all temporary. PLus, bullies, being arseholes, are even more likely to pick on the child after winning this award, either from jealousy or because he is now even more isolated for being the sole winner. No matter what the situation, bullies are always present, a lack of attention is always present, and the need for physical and mental activity is always present. While I am certain that many voters will have come into the debate on the side of video games, I would wager to say that my arguments are both superior and better researched, as well as more logical. I would like to ask hat people vote not on their biases, but by they truly think who won the debate. Thank you.
schools should allow kids to play video games at break

There is many problems with playing video games in between times of needing attention however, as well as other inhreent issues. Firstly, children (and adults) who play videos games have a slight decrease in attention span over the long term. To be honest, this can be combatted easily, and the benefits outweigh the cons when the video games are played during certain times (notably, after all attention required activities are finished). However, playing video games also has a DRASTIC negative impact on the immediate attention span, for about an hour (varying) afterwards. This means that children, when returning from break, will have a GREATLY reduced attention span for which to listen to their teachers and elders, and will learn, proportionately, less. Video games can be used to great effect at schools if they are structured and educational, but during break they will not be, and will be more likely to be unstructured. Moving on, with bullying as prevelant as it is, what are the chances that a child who chooses not to play with friends, but rather to play video games on the computer, will be less bullied? The answer, unlikely, as the child, unless the games are specifically structured and tailored to multiplayer, and other kids are also forced to play multiplayer with him, will be bullied for being an outcast, and will be even more fringe than he already was. Furthermore, while video games can inspire teamwork and cooperation, they much more frequently inspire vitriol and competition. Competition can be very beneficial for a child but, again, the effects are more powerful the sooner after the video game it is, and therefor the child will be much more competitive and aggressive than would be normally appropriate immediately following a break. Plus, there is the issue of the necessity for mobility that children have. The early years are the most important to be physically and mentally active. Video games, while that can be mentally challenging, are not always, and they are most certainly not physical. Yes, they can increase reaction time, as well as a whole slew of other things. But, supplanting them for purely physical or mental activity, when the child (likely being an avid video game player) has a chance at already not getting enough of those activities already is a recipe for obesity, complacency, and overall apathy. A few studies on attention span: http://www.cnn.com... http://www.thetowntalk.com... http://psychcentral.com...
Gay marrige

Hello, to whoever may read this. I do not mean to offend you but these are my beliefs and I do feel strongly about them. So, be prepared lol. I have always felt gay marrige should be legalized. Quite frankly until this week when it finally was, I never thought it would happen. I'm not a member of the LGBT community, but I'm 100% for it. Don't get me wrong, it's not a total shock to me when people want to use bible verses and Jesus Christ as reasons gays shouldn't marry. I understand completely. It's their religion and it's what they believe just like this is what I believe. Doesn't God see all sins equal to one another? In the way that all of them separate you from the bible? Yes! I don't believe in God but he does. At least that's what the bible says, "For the wages of sin is death..."-Romans 6:23. People act like the only sin in the bible is homosexuality. But it's not, to us the sin of homosexuality is the worse sin, because there was a law on it for the longest time. To us, over half the population has already abused all other sins in everyday living expectations. Heres a small list of things the bible prohibits- Homosexuality, eating bacon and hamburgers, wearing jeans with holes in them, premarital sex, tattoos, pigging out everyone once in a while, women wearing "sexy" clothes such as bikinis, watching porn, masturbation, playing football, trimming your hair and beard, having a bowl hair-cut, gossiping, working on Sundays, women speaking at churches, pulling out, obesity, marriage after a divorce, eating assorted sea food, wearing mixed fabric brands, mixing breeds or dogs or any other animal, and wearing "bling". This is just a small list there's plenty more sins. But even though the bible talks about these things being sins, they are legal to do. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE LEGAL TO DO, ALL OF THEM, LITERALLY. But people still say that gays shouldn't marry, because it's a sin to the bible. Well, all the things I said were sins to the bible why don't we put a law on them? Because, to us as americans, putting a law on them isn't a good way to live. Those are things I feel most of us do in everyday living situations I don't know how many Christians I know that eat hamburgers but don't think twice about it I honestly don't. Let me ask you a question. Its a fact there are gays and lesbians in this world. But it's not a fact God was really ever here. A lot of us believe in God, because, well I don't know why maybe because people won't settle for things happening because they do we all want a reason for something. But anyways, there's no physical evidence of God ever really being here. So why do we not want gays to get married in the chance that it might piss God off? Because you were pissing God off when you were eating your burger or bacon or assorted sea food or watching porn or swimming in a bathing suite. I challenge you to give me a reasonable answer as to why gays and lesbians shouldn't be given the right to marry. I really don't want to take "It's a sin to the bible" as a answer because, like I said, there are a lot of other things we do every day that's considered a "sin" but they're legal..
DDOlympics: Storytelling: PRELIMS 1

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE UNLESS YOU ARE AN OFFICIAL DDOLYMPIC JUDGE.Greetings! It seems that we are paired to participate in a storytelling event. We will each have two rounds with 10,000 characters to narrate an isolated story (one story per debater, continued in both rounds).NightofTheLivingCats may go ahead and start (no acceptance), but s/he must concede the last round so that we each have an equal number of stories. Forfeits (except the last round) should count as an automatic loss.Thank you so much! I'm really looking forward to this competition. Good luck!There will be no theme for this debate.Please vote on the best overall story. The only section that needs to be voted on is "arguments," unless there is egregious misconduct or plagiarism (which would constitute a 7-point loss for that individual). No points taken off for grammar/spelling (although this may factor into your argument vote), sources, or conduct.
The Bible is a good source for morals today

Book of ProverbsPro claims that the book of proverbs contains good examples of morality, pro also claims that the book of proverbs is totally separate from the Mosaic law which makes it still relevant today. While the book of proverbs does have some useful morals (even if they weren't particularly revolutionary for the time) it does also appear to call for the death penalty for children who curse their parents (this could also be interpreted as a threat of hell but that is even worse) "If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness." - Proverbs 20:20. GenocideI see, so a person guilty of a seemingly nonsensical crime should only be put to death inside Israel. Jesus Telling us to Love EveryoneIt is very difficult to figure out what Jesus/Yeshua meant in Mark 12:31 but it appears to not be a command to love everyone but instead to love fellow Jews [1]. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus/Yeshua states "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." this clearly contradicts your interpretation of Mark 12:31 as in Matthew 10:34.In Romans 1:24-32 Jesus/Yeshua seems to state that both infidels and gays should either be killed or burn in hell the moral implications of both are just as bad.Forcing Parents to Kill ChildrenIn Zechariah 13:3 (which I assume you accept under the same rational you accept the book of proverbs) god states the the parents of a false prophet must kill the aforementioned false prophet.Killing Children for the Crimes of their ParentsIsaiah 14:21 (which I assume you accept under the same rational you accept the book of proverbs) orders the death of the children for the sin of their parents which is not a good moral guide. Rape is A-OKJudges 5:30 allows for female prisoners of war to be taken as sex slaves.Slaves, Obey Your MastersIn Ephesians 6:5 Christ personally states that slaves should obey their masters and not rebel, Jesus is teaching that slavery is okay and that a person should not stand up to injustice by and authority figure. In Luke 12:47-48 Jesus also allows for the beating of slaves.[1] http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com...
The Bible is a good source for morals today

Thanks toCon for his arguments. Genocide However, we aren't talking about the morality of God Himself, we're talking about whether or not the Bible is a good place to learn morals and apply them today. We can go into God's moral character in another debate if you want. "Pro claims that nowhere in the bible does it say anything like "And all those that worship me will kill anyone who disagrees with them", may I show you an example: 'Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.' [2]" Ah, thankyou. However, it mentions that it must be purged from Israel, and not from thewhole world. And those laws in Levitcus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers don't bind onus today as I demonstrated. Sexism Actually, if you read all of 1 Timothy 2, rather than just verse 12, it mentions that they are just instructions for worship (1)Barbarity of Mosaic LawI would argue that it's still irrelevant. I just demonstrated how those laws aren't binding on us today. And from my understanding, those laws were given in part to help distinguish the Israelites from the surrounding peoples in the area. If you're going to continue to attack Mosaic Law, then this debate is going to move off-topic as we would no longer be discussing whether or not the Bible is a good source for morals today.Good Morals in the BibleI probably should've touched on this first, but I'll go into it anyway.The book of Proverbs has many good moral teachings and work ethics that can be applied successfully today. Note that these would be useful to us today, since these are separate from Mosaic Law and tell what would please God according to absolute morality. Like I said before, the Mosaic Law was mainly given to distinguish the children of Israel from everyone else.In the New Testament, we see Jesus telling us to love everyone. This is noted in Mark 12:31(2) which tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. That is where the Golden Rule originated, also known as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Christ never preached hatred or condemned any race, sex, or sexual orientation of people. The worst he said about them is that they would not enter Heaven. I don't remember Jesus saying that we should kill all unbelievers. (Unless you can show me where it says so.) Whether or not there was that kind of morality before the books of the Bible were written over thousands of years is immaterial, because we're discussing if the Bible itself is a good source for morals. I could go on and on and will provide more if you wish. Note that the Bible is not just religious teaching; it is also a historical document, poetry, etc. ConclusionAs far as I can see, when all this is taken into consideration, the Bible comes out as a relatively good source or morals even in today's world.Over to Con! (1)http://www.biblegateway.com...(2) http://biblehub.com...;
The Bible is a good source for morals today

GenocideThe reason I brought up the charachter of Yahweh was because Yahweh is claimed to be the perfect source of morality and this perfect source of morality commands the deaths of several million people [1]. When an omnibenovolent being commands genocide you have to question what omnibenevolence means in the context and what true morality is.Pro claims that nowhere in the bible does it say anything like "And all those that worship me will kill anyone who disagrees with them", may I show you an example:"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." [2]SexismThat's not what I get from Timothy 2:12, I may return to this later.Barbarity of Mosac LawMy points had little to do with the morality of god and everything to do with the morality of the bible. Mosac law was handed down to Moses by ultimate source of morality (according to the bible) and therefore when you look at the Mosac laws you should find what is supposed to be the most perfect morality for the time it was revealed. [1]http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.uk...[2] Deuteronomy 17:12