BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Torture Something We Should Practice

In this final round, the use of the term torture is equivocated to the use of crossing pain thresholds for personal gratification, sexual or otherwise, of the person performing the acts.There are kids hurting small animals, they are sick. Once you start hurting animals, I don't think a normal life is possible and if it is possilble the chances are slim. I'm not toaling about hurting animals in the sense of killing them for food. I don't care for the taste of all meats but eating meat in general is nutritional and delicious. You won't get any information from any one by leaving them for dogs to eat, or sodomizing them. And you won't get any infromation from animals.In the movie "Unthinkable," a man is put through rigerous tests of physical and mental hardships during his interrogation because he is threatening the lives of thousands of others with a bomb that is set to explode somewhere in the city. The man is very well trained to withstand the attacks. But eventually the man gives up the information of all of the bombs but one. The bomb goes off and he kills himself. In this movie, it is very clear that the man being interogated is killer. The killer is using tools to kill inocent civilians. The interogator is using his tools against a killer and for the purpose of saving 1,000 contributing members of society vs. the poor treatment of a destructive member of society.There are many people who if put in the situation would give up thier own life it meant saving someone elses. Even the killer in "Unthinkable" cracks when his children are threatened, but only a little bit. This killer has lost his humanity and longs for the death of thousands. He would even murder his children, or at the very least stand idley by while he watches them be murdered.The movie also shows the the great lengths people will go through to save lives. Debate.com presents the information in the manner of whether or not you do or don't agree with toture in this context. The toture you describe is like "saw" or "hostel" which is usleless and dehuminiizing.
Is Torture Something We Should Practice

So the point is this. Torture will be ways of getting info. But just to clarify, here is the definition of torture. Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained. http://www.subulahanews.com... I have also seen where torture involves leaving the victim to suffer with dogs attacking him, sodomizing, and threatening the victims family. If anything, the people who torture others are the animals. You promote violence and hostility instead of the American and Christian love and peace. As a Christian Anarchist, this is why I despise most of our wars. Because it's now a game. You get power or authority over somebody, and you will abuse it. This was proven in 1970 with the Stanford Prison Experiment. And the conformity to almost kill people was the Milgram Experiment in 1964. I'm sure we are familiar with the Standford Experiment. But the Milgram Experiment was one where people were paid 4 bucks an hour. They were told to shock a man in a seperate room. The man was actually an actor who gave a good illusion. They were told to shock him and later increase the voltage of shock each time. Not many people left the experiment. Most people continued because they were obeying a higher authority figure. So when we torture or are told information about torture, some of us are fools for obeying to conformity instead of learning about the damage of torture ourselves. From the picture I have shown, would you rather do it humanely. Or would you rather be the animal that corrupt military officers are trying to enforce on society.
Is Torture Something We Should Practice

Sorry for my last post, it was long and probably hard to follow. But now we are into territory that I mentioned in my acceptance. The meaning of torture has changed again. In the first round, it was the mere act of torture. In the second round it was the use of physical force to gain information from captured militants. In this third round, torture is now peeing on the body of prisoners. I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Actually, I am sure where you are going with this. By changing the meaning of the term halfway through the argument, it changes the meaning of what I said in the previous rounds. I will not answer your questions and I challenge the legitimacy of your argument. I will let your questions stand as their own misleading representations of your own views that they are. Sweatshops, middle easterners, President Hoover, Syria? There is still another round. Let’s bring it back to topic. Russian Spetnaz, green berets, that’s the threshold I was talking about earlier. If torture after capture is not the answer, giving them some tea and cookies won’t be an adequate method of interrogation either. I can see it now, you give them a nice warm bed and hot bath and badabing, the next wikilinks is born (probably not). But let’s be real no information is the same as no information. Whatever information, you can’t get, you can’t get.
Is Torture Something We Should Practice

That story about God telling his people to kill in war, when was that? Old Testament? Things change. There is no more need for holy wars. Unless your with Army of God or any other lunatic Crusader. Like I said, if they don't respond, you don't know everything unless you have their psych profile and background. Remember the story of the guy with the family. Russian Spetsnaz have been known to have trained under conditions where they will NEVER give in to torture. And if Green Berets are the same, if i may ask you sir, would you consider them not human if they don't respond to the torture and questions? Torture is pretty much the unnecessary use of force to get answers. So is it ok for play with guns at them? Is it ok use the prisoner's body as a bathroom? Is it ok to mutilate them? To abuse them? Remember, while the enemy you fight does wrong, America has done plenty of it's own corrupt ways. The military was used to attack the protesting veterans in the Great Depression. The result, a woman and her baby died. President Hoover didn't apologize. While I support our troops, I believe in fighting for the right reasons. We have no involvement in Syria and it may turn into something where we ask for something in return for our help, even we are gonna help anyways. The government is corrupt for using war to steal and attack people for their own benefits. Explain the sweatshops we have. Back on topic. If you need to use torture to get answers, then no offense because I bet you can beat me up, your an idiot. My English professor has stated that words have a ton of power because words hurt or heal. It's how you use your words carefully. Also: Do you think all Muslims or anybody from the Middle East is a supporter of terrorism and death to America?
Is Torture Something We Should Practice

Torture. It's an idea of using physical force to get answers. Like breaking a person's arm or the fingers that are on it. Cutting the body. The Chinese Torture. I have found many ways of torture. Eventually, my ideas of torture grew into that of murders. What started as the idea of letting a cutting a man, letting him be out in the boat for the sharks to get him unless he told me info grew into this. I cut the man, tie him to the end of the boat, duck tape his body, drive with him in the water while letting the open wound bleed, and eventually the shark ate him. Not only would it turn flawed, but it would turn into the part where I loved people dying. That was disturbing. I see people practicing torture methods on bugs and little animals. Back to the point. When you physically injure somebody in a torture, you can go too far. There exists a thing. Death. The person can die from possible blows you let them take. They can also be psychologically harmed. The Chinese Torture method is very intense and can leave some people scarred if it goes on. There are no real limits to torture except no killing. The idea is inhumane because unless you know who your dealing with, you don't know the person. Example, you take an Iraqi Terrorist member who had been left behind by his group. You interrogate him for information regarding whereabouts or next attack. He refuses to give up. So you torture him to get an answer. What if he was forced to do it or else his wife and children die? We forget just how human we are. You can take Iraqi in this sentence and replace it with any form of country name and it applies the same way. Torture is stooping to the lowest. Cops have other ways of getting information. Interrogation. Simple and easy. Going back to the same scenario, maybe you empathize. Find out about his kids. Say you'll offer him and his family protection, if he gives up any info to help out. BOOM! Nobody gets injured. So to end my starting statements, allow me to finish. Torture = 100% Injuries of mental or physical kind Interrogation = Not so much
Is Torture Something We Should Practice

Although I accept, and I will defend my view of the useing pain thresholds as a method of encouragement to people who are otherwise unwilling to divulge information related to the death or possible death of innocent civilians or fellow countrymen is warrented and rightous. Using pain thresholds as a measure of sexual or some other form of personal gratification, or excitement is vile and sick. I don't even like S&M. Practicing Torture is not like practicing baseball, and then using it in a game. It would be more like a doctor. Every time a doctor "practices" there are real life consequences that follow all the way to the end. So I definitely do not thing there should be practice. It should only be done at the time it needs to be done.Sometimes, equivocation starts debates like this. The site asks for person's view on "torture" the describes in it's use for information gathering. A person says they agree with it and the next thing you know, another person applies a different context and every thing you said about the subject before completly goes out the window. It would be like me asking you if you beieved in excitement and you said yes. Then I asked if you like jumping off of bridges and you said no. Then I went on to badgering you about how you must like jumping off bridges because you said you believed in excitement. In the end, not only have I challenged you as a person, I have totaly destroyed your confidence in your own ability to make decisions. Notice the difference of the first two statements. Initialy I say do you believe in it. Next I ask if you like my idea of excitement. The two are very differnt leading, and loaded questions. As a rule for this debate I hope that we can stay away from this type of nasty pidgeon holings.Secondly, Despite what the media says concering this subject, Those views are not nesseceraly entirely my views. I do know what my views are and I will state them as clearly as possible, I expect you will state your views as clearly as possible also. And we will neither attempt to state each other's views nor strawman in any form.
cats are better than dogs

i would like to state the definition of dog as you see below as i have been saying they are carnivorous and they are very tough and are related to wolfs that live in the wild and are fierce. dog (dï¿½g, dg) n. 1. A domesticated carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris) related to the foxes and wolves and raised in a wide variety of breeds. 2. Any of various carnivorous mammals of the family Canidae, such as the dingo. 3. A male animal of the family Canidae, especially of the fox or a domesticated breed.
cats are better than dogs

As my last argument suggest, cats are the descendants of larger more aggressive animals. Definitions Cat: Cat (noun) a small domesticated mammal that has soft fur, sharp claws, pointed ears, and, usually, a long furry tail, and makes characteristic purring or meowing sounds. Cats are widely kept as pets or to catch mice. Latin name: Felis catus Feline: fe•line (adjective) an animal belonging to the cat family. Domestic cats, lions, and tigers are felines. Family: Felidae the average house cat is not what we are talking about , we are talking about large cats like the tigers and lions. Tigers and Lions have teeth such as canine. The canine teeth are large, reaching exceptional size in the extinct saber- tooth species. The upper third premolar and lower molar are adapted as carnassials teeth, suited to tearing and cutting flesh. The jaws of felids can only move vertically. This prevents them from being able to chew, but makes it easier for their powerful masseter jaw muscles to hold struggling prey. This proves that Cats are better than dogs
Secession in the United states is constitutional

Response to Paragraph 1:Whether or not Article 10 Mentions secession or not is invalid. Article 10 Mentions no institutions or practices whatsoever, but clearly applies to them. It is impossible to deny this, as the 10th Amendment has not been amended or repealed. As for Article 1 Sec.10 Clause 1, Upon secession, you are no longer a part of the Union. This was meant to apply to states within the U.S. but completely collapses upon secession.Response to Paragraph 2:This argument is completely Valid, but is hypocritical to the American Cause. To put it simply, a supreme law must be in place, but Was this not similar to what was in place in the British Empire (i.e. Parliament being superior to all inferior courts)? America seceded anyways.Response to Paragraph 3:Very good point, but I would argue the supreme court is wrong. The Supreme court is supposed to judge according to the constitution, and if you have taken American History, you would know that the Supreme court was majority republican, and Northern at the end of the Civil war, effectively biasing Congress according to one group's interpretation of the Founding Documents. One opinion, or group is exactly what our type of government is made to protect against. The Reconstruction had many laws passed without Legal opposition, able to impose their will on the Majority. Therefore much of the articles passed though necessary, were at it's very foundation Un-American, and Threatening to national freedom.
Secession in the United states is constitutional

Thank you for the good response Pro! To not put all of my arguments in one basket, I'm going to discuss the legality of secession exclusively in this round, and then discuss our Founding Fathers as well as the consequences of secession in future rounds. The Legality of Secession At first glance, Article X of the U.S. Constitution seems to support secession without a doubt. However, Article X does not mention secession once so ever. Not only that, but Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 states, "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." [1] Article X does not put any state as the first authority, but rather, the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) puts federal law above state law. Article VI states, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Note that if a state were to make its own constitution, it would still be subordinate to the national Constitution. [2] Now let's look elsewhere, besides the Articles of the Constitution. Texas v. White, a Supreme Court case that took place during 1867 proves that secession (legally at least) is an impossibility. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase's majority opinion states, "The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the states." [3] This quote is definitely spot on. For example, if Texas tries to secede, most (if not all) the other states would not let Texas do so. If Texas tried to take the nation itself to war, we can all agree that the outcome could be easily predicted. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... I look forward to your response Pro.
Secession in the United states is constitutional

I do not wish to waste space, so I will move directly onto the Debate, and by the end of the Round, I will have made 3 Clauses as to why Secession is constitution etc. (Note* I will keep it short and sweet)THE FOUNDING FATHERS:Clause 1:There is overwhelming evidence that the Founding Father Advocated Secession. The First piece of evidence of which is that they themselves seceded. It is impossible to claim that the Founding Fathers did not advocate secession. This assumption is Hypocritical, and unwise. THE CONSTITUTION:Clause 2:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - Article X of the U. S. ConstitutionSecession meets the Criteria mentioned above. The Power of Secession was not granted to the U. S. by the constitution, nor did it ever prohibit secession to the states. You have no basis to deny the 10th Amendment, as the Constitution is the Law of the Land. IS IT WISE:Clause 3:while typing this Argument, I couldn't help but notice your profile picture. It consisted of an American Flag, and a Soldier. Was it not Wise for the U. S. to secede from Britain? Was it not wise for Portugal to secede from Spain? If no one could Secede (Or leave another country), than nothing would ever advance. No Civil wars, or Revolutions. We would be under an extreme Right Wing Catholic reign in Europe ruled by Monarchs. No French Revolution, No English Civil war, No American Revolution, No Advancements. Good Luck. God Bless.
Secession in the United states is constitutional

Introduction Greetings Killerchicken12! I will use this first round as an opening statement to explain what I think about this topic. I will provide evidence as to why your statement can be negated in future rounds. I will admit, it is quite unfortunate that people still believe the myth that secession is legal. Simply reading our constitution as well as research on the Civil War will teach you that secession is not only illegal, but unwise. Even if our Founding Fathers denounced secession, it would have no impact on the laws of our nation once so ever. Thank you, back to you Pro!
Secession in the United states is constitutional

Hello, and Welcome to The Debate. To Win: Whosoever chooses to accept must prove that: -The Founding Fathers spoke out against secession -The Constitution Forbids secession and Finally -Secession is not only Illegal, but unwise. Rules: -Pro will Define Terms, and Rules. -Refrain from Cursing, or profanity -Please cite sources if any were used.
Looking to the future, we should fund Nuclear energy rather than Wind energy.

#1 Nuclear Energy is cheaper than Wind EnergyConservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris's statistics show the current wholesale prices for the two energies - Nuclear is £50/MWHr, and Wind energy is £100-220+/MWHr [1]. #2 Nuclear Energy is more efficient than Wind EnergyIt is no secret that the wind doesn't always blow, but how much does this impact on the efficiency of Wind turbines? Wind Turbines have a capacity factor ranging from 20-40% [2], whilst Nuclear Power Plants have a capacity factor of 90.9% (2013 figure) [3]. Also, Wind Turbines have to be turned off when the wind is blowing too strongly in case they catch on fire, and also in a lot of other non-mild weather conditions. This fact was highlighted well in 2013 when over just 2 days, Wind Farms were given £5 million to turn off the Wind turbines, leaving thousands of homes without power [4]. #3 Wind Turbines cause large amounts of noise, which causes psychological stressScientists have found that people can experience psychological stress because of the amount of noise that wind turbines produce [5]. This is a massive problem when you consider the fact that it would take 2077 Wind Turbines to produce as much energy as one Nuclear Power Plant [6]. #4 Wind Turbines contribute further to problems with housingKeeping the last statistic in mind, let's think about what impact it means Wind turbines will have on housing. It's not good, 2077 Wind Turbines doing the same job as one Nuclear Power Plant [7]. This means that:a) There won't be able to be as many houses, because of the large amounts of space that Wind Turbines take up. b) A significant amount of houses will become much less desirable by being near Wind Turbines. Sources[1] . http://www.togetheragainstwind.com...[2] . http://www.umass.edu...[3] . http://www.nei.org...[4] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[5] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[6] . http://ansnuclearcafe.org...[7] ibid
Looking to the future, we should fund Nuclear energy rather than Wind energy.

Hello, I am Jacob Gibbs, and this debate is part of my Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme.Resolution: "Looking to the future, we should fund Nuclear energy rather than Wind energy"I will be arguing for the resolution, my opponent will be arguing against. Rules of the debate1. No abuse of semantics.2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.3. Plus, all ToS (Terms Of uSe) apply.4. Breaking any of the rules constitutes a forfeit and the voters are then not justified in giving that person any points.Structure of this debateRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3+4 - Rebuttals Thank you.