BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should torture be used against terrorists

Many people disagree about whether torture should be used on known terrorists. I believe that torture should be used for various reasons. One reason is torture could prevent lots of "collateral damage", by torturing a terrorist we could find a bomb that would have killed many people if we had not found it. " if we are willing to act in a way that guarantees the misery and death of some considerable number of innocent children, why spare the rod with known terrorists? This shows how if we torture known terrorists we can take the noncombatant death toll down considerably. Another argument for torture is that in extreme circumstances torture can be completely justified, "Torturing the terrorist is unethical and can't be justified, but it can be understood, and it can be forgiven." this shows how in extreme circumstances, like a bomb in highly populated lace like times square, torture would be totally justified. As you can see from the evidence the government should use torture against known terrorists.
This House Asserts That Ontology Necessitates God!

Shalom Aleichem! The idea of this debate started with me contacting Roy for a debate. Given a list of topics he believed that the best topic to discuss is the Ontological Argument. I believe I should mention the Spirit of the Motion is whether the study of Being, with relation to the studies of Ideas can make God a necessary conception. There are some rules which both parties must accept: 1. The first round for Roy is acceptance only, and to share any pleasantries. He accepts the definitions, and rules set herein. 2. The onus rests on the Proposition who must show that there is a logically sound Ontological Argument. 3. The order of the debate is such that the maximum limit is 10, 000 characters, there will be 48 hours given to post an argument, and anyone with an Elo above 3500 may vote. I do ask, of those who vote, to please provide strong reasons for debate explaining the decision on each point. This is of course only a humble request. 4. Any and all sources must be linked, and a referencing number should be provided in the argument. Sources must be easily available, and paginations must be cited. 5. All the respective definitions may be taken from the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any other well reputed text such as A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, or A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. These definitions of course can be debated. While I would like that everyone be courteous and respect the opponents arguments so as not to deconstruct it, and take out meanings where one meaning is specified, Roy does not wish this to be part of the rules and so this is not. I only request that the words I use be taken (so long as they are reasonably in the lines of one specific meaning) to that meaning. Here are some of the fundamental definitions: 1. God: God is a transcendental entity, who escapes the boundaries of human cognition, and holds the answer to key metaphysical concepts. God here is a Being who is different than Nature or the Universe, and it would not do that I universalize God. It should be clear that He is a separate entity/being/phenomenon which exists independent of any physical element. 2. Ontology: Ontology is the study of Being where one tries to prove phenomenon from a completely rational perspective, starting out with nothing but the conceptualization of a Being. 3. Necessitates: Makes necessary, when I talk about necessitating God I make it clear that the argument must prove that God exists. I wish the best of luck to Roy! Faithfully Yours, Ajabi.
The Chinese Cultural Revolution Positively Impacted China's Well-Being

In the course of the 19th century, foreign powers has extensive economic-political privileges, where concessions were won by force. These foreign privileges were a major obstacle to any Chinese political movement aiming to unify the country. Though the upper-class may have had some losses, the peasants were the vast majority of China prior to the Cultural Revolution who were dominated by the gentry class. This was a huge obstacle to modernization. Peasants lived extremely harsh lives, constantly living in famine. You argued that many citizens who lived in urbanised areas were driven to poverty, but prior to the revolution, most of the urban workers were unskilled and also lived in dire poverty. At the same time, merchants lacked capital and foresight, and those who did were capable were not able to carry on their ideals because they were hampered by the privileges given to the foreign powers. You have mentioned that 20 million people may have possibly died from the revolution, and I will agree with that statistic. However, the losses were definitely worth the gains made. The 20 million people mentioned were only 0.02% of the 800 million Chinese that lived during the Cultural Revolution. Prior to the revolution, the citizens of China seeked an educated, united China, free from foreign privileges, and this was expressed in the May 4th Movement in 1919. It was a student-led movement that protested against the unfair treatment of China by the foreign powers. Without the Cultural Revolution, this and the 4000 years of exploitation would have never ended. Though you argue that China was not given the freedom of equality, during the cultural revolution, the previous beliefs of Confucianism (where men dominated women) was liberated and women were given the same rights as men, including the right to file for divorce. Keep in mind, Mao overthrown a society that could not rid the country's Opium addiction from the 1840s. He empowered them to kick the habit and educated the population about the causes of this particular drug. Since 1952, there were no more addicts, no more poppies grown, and no more opium smugglers. It took Mao only three years to rid of China's 70 million opium addicts to none. China's well-being was drastically improved in the long-term. Though there was some struggling at the start, no great revolution can be successful without initial problems. You have also mentioned that skills were wasted as students were sent to the countryside, but students were encouraged to gain knowledge to solve society's most pressing issues. Nationwide, more and more people were given access to schools and a better quality education. Now, China is one of the most highly educated countries in the world. (1) http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu... (2) http://www.revcom.us... (3) http://www.history.com...
The Chinese Cultural Revolution Positively Impacted China's Well-Being

The Chinese Cultural Revolution positively impacted China despite some belief. Mao Zedong took a great step forward to revolutionize China, and its society. He said, "China will be free of inequality, poverty and foreign domination." which he succeeded to achieve. Peasants were guaranteed income and education. In fact, the literacy rate before the Chinese Cultural Revolution was a mere 15-25% also lacking national curricular goals; but after 1949 under Mao's new leadership, China's literacy rates increased tremendously. He established schools in both rural and urban areas, and without Mao's push in education, China would not be where they are today. Now China has a national literacy rate of over 95%, and there is over 99% of Chinese children enrolled in school. This was only one of Mao's great steps to pushing China in the right direction forward. He turned China from a largely uncivilized society to a modern industrial nation. He provided to the peasants what would have never been provided prior the revolution. Social classes became less relevant as the nation's wealth increased, producing national pride for China. Factory workers' well-being were being paid more attention to, to create much comfortable working environments for them. As the innovation of machinery increased, the mass production and quality of goods did as well, decreasing product prices. This provided a larger accessibility to quality goods and at much cheaper prices, which increased the quality of life in China. (1) http://schugurensky.faculty.asu.edu... (2) http://ilookchina.net... (3) http://www.quora.com...
The Chinese Cultural Revolution Positively Impacted China's Well-Being

I acknowledge all your points, however, to end, I would like to mention the significant effects of any such revolution on a country's well-being. From this argument we have concluded that there are both benefits and consequences, good and bad effects on well-being. - Chinese literacy rates rose. However, this mainly benefited the poor and agriculture/farm workers. This had a reverse effect on the middle to upper-class and the educated. (sent to the country side, deprived of opportunities ect.) Also the education system was badly hurt and took many years to repair. - Practically destroyed the Chinese economy and government. Restorations took years. - Ruined generations of families who were targets of the revolution. - Many citizens lost their possessions. Politicians, landowners, and the high class society lost their jobs and properties. - Suicide, murder and violence rate increased. - The upheavals of the Cultural Revolution and the hostility to the intellectual elite is widely accepted to have damaged the quality of education in China, especially at the upper end of education system. However, the radical policies also provided many in the rural communities with middle school education for the first time, which is thought to have facilitated the rural economic development in the 70s and 80s. Similarly, a large number of health personnel were deployed to the countryside as barefoot doctors during the Cultural Revolution. Some farmers were given informal medical training, and health-care centres were established in rural communities. This process led to a marked improvement in the health and the life expectancy of the general population. - Womens rights were liberated and a greater sense of equality was achieved. Total sources used: (1) http://www.chineseupress.com... (2) http://libcom.org... (3) http://classroom.synonym.com... (4) https://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... (6) http://www.history.com... (7) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (8) http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au...
The Chinese Cultural Revolution Positively Impacted China's Well-Being

You stated, "... as Mao's power rose, he wished to suppress knowledge and understanding, and in actual fact, almost wiped out all of China's education..." which was not his intent. He did not try to eliminate knowledge, but in reality, drain the surviving threats of the old society. Unlike the old society, Mao attempted to unite China, and encouraged people to abandon narrow self-interests and to take to account everyone's interests as a collective community. You said that the citizens of China became "manipulated and brainwashed with the ideology of Maoism" which is a huge over-exaggeration. Mao promoted critical thinking and socialist values to help benefit the future of China. Nationwide admission exams were abolished, making it possible for peasants, workers and soldiers to attend university. Furthermore, you have mentioned that "gender equality was never fully acknowledged in China" but in actual fact, women made substantial gains from the Cultural Revolution that they wouldn't have made otherwise. Many received higher paying industrial jobs, became political leaders and challenge women's inferiority. If it wasn't for the revolution, men in China would still have the ability to marry as many women as they wanted and to divorce them as they pleased. If there was no Cultural Revolution, there would have been no change to the inequality of genders. The idea of Maoism was to create a classless society where no one was deemed better than anyone else, and where everyone was equal. The achievements of the Cultural Revolution deserve recognition as the most advanced form of a socialist transformation to date. Thus, it is important to avoid the idealized picture of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. (1) http://maoistrebelnews.wordpress.com... (2) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... (3) www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum.../kla/.../China_A5_e.pdf
The Chinese Cultural Revolution Positively Impacted China's Well-Being

Kathleen, you state that "students were encouraged to gain knowledge to solve society's most pressing issues. Nationwide, more and more people were given access to schools and a better quality education", however, this is debatable since as Mao's power rose, he wished to suppress knowledge and understanding, and in actual fact, almost wiped out all of China's education, forcibly moving young people to the countryside where they were forced to abandon all knowledge in the face of Mao's teachings. Almost all of China's citizens became manipulated and almost brainwashed with the ideology of Maoism that people started to make poor judgements such as denouncing and accusing people in the wrong way - this resulted in an increase in murder, suicide and violence rates. People started to turn against each other for no reason, and eventually, mass chaos occurred where people were persecuted; churches, mosques, temples, books and ancient scrolls were burned; agriculture declined, factories closed and all the Chinese cultures and traditions nearly disappeared altogether. Additionally, although women were liberated, the notion of gender equality was never fully acknowledged in China - even to this day. Families continue to want boys over girls, abandon girls to support sons, give men better jobs - even if a woman can do it such as manager or a C-role ect. ect. Certainly, it was a step up from the previous inequality level, however, it wasn't worth the 20 million lives lost. And even though you say that was only 0.02% of the population, it is still 20 million people. 20 million people died. For a revolution that didn't do much good. Even the Nazis killed less people during World War 2 - and that was a world war...this was a revolution. Women living in China during the Cultural Revolution continue to be affected by the trauma today. One such woman is Ping Fu, who at age 8 was taken from her home by Red Guards and forced to live in a government dormitory in Nanjing. According to Forbes, at the dormitory Ping was "brainwashed, starved, tortured and gang raped." Millions of women went through this suffering, and thousands still have to live with the trauma.
FGM, an Islamic rite........

Whether you agree with female sexual pleasure or not, that is a marginal act of reasoning as there are real religious factors regarding the wellbeing and the general morality of FGM. Implying it's Islamic is similar to agreeing that Islamic State are really representing the teachings of Islam. Although it has recently acquired a religious dimension, FGM is cultural and subject to specific cases rather than every Muslim. There is no direct reference to FGM in the Qur'an to justify its use, in fact in many perspectives the Qur'an opposes such a thing under the terms that mutilation and alteration of human beings are against the teachings of the Qur'an. It is not an Islamic practice and is not endorsed by Islam in any way; FGM is influenced by other factors as religiously there is no evidence to justify its endorsement.
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

It is imperative to note that we are specifically discussing verses 10 and 11 of Genesis, not the whole book. These verses do not talk about how babies are made. The example I used was only to show the relevance of predictability. It is not very effective anyways to compare explanatory power using only one accounted element (as you suggested with the baby). As I mentioned before, Tractatus de Sphaera accounts for astronomical phenomena. These include the Earth's rotation and that of the planets in our Solar system, Earth's orbit and that of the other planets, our four seasons and their duration, the roundness of Earth, and so on. However, keep in mind that the observations accounted for is only ONE of all the criteria we should be discussing to compare explanatory power, i.e. just because an explanation accounts for more things than another, it doesn't mean it is a better explanation.
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

I know the baby was only an example, but let us take that further. If you had in your possession a baby of unknown origin, and you had Tractatus de spaera in the one hand, while you had Genesis in the other hand - the existence of the baby is better explained by Genesis.I know you may not approve of this example, so I will add to that: in what way can you use the Tractatus de sphaera to explain anything that we see today? Whether it be the remains of the Hittites, the global similarities in Flood accounts, or where Arabs come from?I have provided several examples of Genesis explaining certain observations in our world today, and I could provide many more at request, or as we progress. I do not see how the Tractatus de sphaera can come close to that, so a few examples would be good.
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

Okay let's say I read two explanations (A & B) on how babies are made. A said babies are made via intercourse and B said babies are made by praying. The most effective way to compare explanatory power here would be to look their predictability. You can more accurately predict the making of a baby after intercourse than after praying. (It's a silly example lol but it delivers the point). However, predictability and ability to be tested are pretty closely linked and it might be practical to put those under the same category for purposes of this debate. I agree that "methodic observation is not an explanation of events", I assigned methodic observation to one of the criteria of explanatory power, i.e. an explanation is more powerful if it's more based on observation. I also agree that "The document that is Genesis 10/11 on the other hand, provides explanations for various historical observations, f.ex., why Egypt is called Misr" but that point would fall under facts accounted for. The fact that Egypt is called Misr is accounted for in Genesis 10/11, it is not an observation used to arrive at the explanation provided in Genesis 10/11.
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

I apologize for my ignorance, but I do not see the relation between explanatory power and predictability. It's fine to predict a certain event, but that does not provide an explanation of the event - why does it happen, what are it's origins, what is the primary cause?Talking about predictability, Sacrobosco (the author of Tractatus de sphaera) does include miracles in his writing, which is the opposite of predictability. For instance, he states that the eclipse at the time of the crucifixion was a disturbance in the order of the machine, also known as the universe - it's irrelevant here, but an interesting point to note.Aside from that, my main point here is, methodic observation is not an explanation of events, it's a prediction of events based upon the recognition of pattern, and a belief in the uniform laws of the cosmos. The document that is Genesis 10/11 on the other hand, provides explanations for various historical observations, f.ex., why Egypt is called Misr.
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

Drawing a line for what time periods we can start calling "ancient" does have an impact on this debate because it will determine what texts we'll be able to compare with Genesis, it's probably the first thing that should have been defined. Modern history is generally referred to as the time proceeding post-classical history or approximately any time after early 16th century. You have implied that all you wanted to exclude was any modern encyclopedia, so all text is fair game except any encyclopedia written after the 16th century. Another point I'd like to make is that you cannot completely dissociate explanatory power from historical accuracy. The criteria by which we assign explanatory power are: - the facts accounted for - the details of causal relations that are provided - its predictive power - its dependency on observation rather than authority (this is a big miss for Genesis) - assumptions made - its ability to be tested (another big miss) To give an example that would beat Genesis 10/11 I'll use Sacrobosco's Tractatus de Sphaera, an account on the Ptolemaic system (written in 1230). The Ptolemaic system was used to explain many astronomical phenomena and it was developed in the Islamic golden age. Now to compare the explanatory power of the two texts (Neither of which are "modern productions of our time") and I'll focus on the elements where the discrepancy is greatest. - predictive power Genesis 10/11 can't be used to predict much, maybe if we humans got together and started building a tower to heaven we might expect God to come down and stop us again lol. Tractatus de Sphaera can be used to predict movement in celestial bodies and length of seasons. - its dependency on observation rather than authority Genesis 10/11 is completely based on authority, it is regarded as "the word of God" Tractatus de Sphaera is based on methodic observation. - ability to be tested Genesis 10/11 cannot by any means be tested for validity. Tractatus de Sphaera can very well be tested by using its calculations. By this comparison of explanatory power, verses 10 and 11 in Genesis don't seem to hold up very well. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

The only reason I said that Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document, is to exclude any modern Encyclopedia from the debate. Other than that, I don't see why it would matter whether Genesis was written 6,000 years ago, 3,500 years ago, or 2,500 years ago. It has no impact on this debate, all that matters is that it's not a modern production of our time.And to be more specific about the explanatory power of Genesis, that I believe other texts do not have:(1) You walk along the streets of Cairo, Egypt, and notice a writing on the wall of a government building, which says, Jumhuriyat Misr al-Arabiya, which translates to Arab Republic of Egypt. So you wonder, which of the words in Jumhuriyat Misr al-Arabiya translates as Egypt? And then you figure out it's the word Misr. So you are left wondering, why in the world would Misr be translated as Egypt? Well, here comes the fun part. All that you have to do, is open the Book of Genesis, and there you have it: the grandson of Noah, by the name of Misraim, was the founder of Egypt. (2) You are in the Balkans, and hear of the Illyrians, but you have no idea who they are, or where they come from. Albanians say they are the Illyrians, Serbians say they are the Illyrians, and both have different versions of the story. Open the Bible, and you figure out that the founder of the Israelite tribe of Gad which migrated from Greece into Balkan lands, called his youngest son Arile (hint: Aryllia / Illyria). (3) Perhaps you are in Egypt, and you overhear a conversation, where someone refers to the neighboring country of Libya as Punt. So like you wondered about Misr, you also wonder about this. Why in the world is Libya known to them as Punt? Well, on to Genesis 10:6: "And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan." Notice a little "Phut" there? The same person, according to the Bible, went into Africa following the flood, and settled there. Libya is in Africa, and coincidentally, referred to as Punt (or Put/Phut).