BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Waterboarding is wrong

My opponent brought up that it is a military tactic to get information out of someone and that it is a moral issue as well. I will debate that it is wrong if not only for the torture reasons, but also for the moral reasons. First, the United States has to follow the constitution that is the road map that the United States has to follow. The 14th amendment states that cruel punishment can't be placed on an individual who is in jail or arrested. Second , the information the the United States gains from the individual who has been waterboarded is unfounded, when someone is being tortured they will say anything to end the torture they feel even admit to a crime they never committed. Lastly, it is not moral to cause someone to go through an inhumane practice like the what someone goes through when being waterboarded. Sources . http://www.usconstitution.net... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.duhaime.org... . http://www.youtube.com...
Waterboarding is wrong

I accept the burden of proof... Waterboarding is a form of torture that simulates the feeling of drowning, commonly used by law enforcement and military forces to get information out of someone. The point of my argument is to negate the word "wrong" and prove that in this case, the subject (waerboarding) is not "wrong" Knowing this, saying that waterboarding is "wrong" is too broad a term to label it. This is not by any means a factual debate, but a moral debate. That being said moral debates are long, difficult to prove, and often end in insults. (lets hope that doesn't happen here) I will start with an example of why "wrong" does not describe waterboarding. The definition of wrong (from dictionary.com) is not in accordance with what is morally right or good. Lets use the holocaust as an example. Your average person would say the holocaust is wrong, but if you ask Adolf Hitler, he would say that the holocaust helped Germany get rich ad exterminate the Jews. From his point of view the holocaust is right. So what does that mean? It means that one persons idea of the definition of wrong is completely dependent upon ones personal morality. We all know that morality differs from person to person meaning there is not any one universal meaning of the word wrong. Therefore waterboarding could not be considered wrong or right.
Being poor should be a crime

I thank Imabench for his arguments. Now, sh*t's getting serious.1+2) http://www.zompist.com...http://home.snu.edu...http://www.biblequery.org...It took me less than 1 minute to find all of these. My opponent is obviously lacking in any knowledge of the bible. There is a large amount of sufficient proof that being poor is a sin. My opponent loses this point.3) My opponent states that it doesn't suddenly make them poor. While this is true, when one is let off, they gradually get poor. Losing a job eventually makes people homeless.4) Uhh..... I choose Hawaiian vacation? I do so because I beleive that Hawaii seems way better. Because someone is put at the inconvenience of being poor, we should send them to hoboland where they can't harm society. 5) If we send them there, there is no way that they can revolt. Hoboland isn't that big, and we could nuke em out if they become a neusance.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Uhhhh....... I pretty sure its all on booz, drugs, and hookers, as stated in your 2nd picture. Aren't you agreeing with me here now?2) Ah. Good argument. But here's the solution: BIG FANS. We blow it all in the direction of Korea, and we blame it on the Hobos. The Koreans become angry, they threaten to kill them all, and then, when the hobos become a neusance, KOREA NUKE TIME!!!!!3) You stated that the sentence would be possible death.... so you don't really care..... :/4+5) Of course, like our government always does, they don't tell anyone that we'll nuke them if they get out of hand. And yes, the government is crazier than any hobo.Just the ones who dont have a life savings to live off of and immediately become poor and homeless....You said in argument 3 that you cared, but you do think they should die? Cotradiction? Yep. Have you seen prisons before? NOBODY wants to go there people get violated with screwdrivers all the time, they get stabbed, shanked, stanked, shot, killed, and have to eat prison food all the time. It is more then just free housing like you claim. If it comes to the point where the IRS is knocking at your door and your in an incredible amount of debt, prison is a free way out for them.We must not allow the homeless to gather and coordinate against us and simply nuke us if they get close, that is immoral. We must go a step further and divide them all into the nations prisons to ensure our safety!Immoral? Safety? Your saying death one sentence and them saying that your all about safety the next. You say I'm immoral, but your defenition of morals are obviously wrong, considering you thought being poor was a crime in the bible. Coincidence? I think NOT!!!!!!!Hoboland is not a place where they should be nuked, its a way that they can be kept away from us so that they don't cause any damage to society, and we don't even have to nuke them unless they become a hazard and threaten us with danger to society. In which case, we have a moral obligation to defend ourselves.HOBOLAND FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!
Being poor should be a crime

I thank Imabench for his arguments and his creativity.First, ONTO MY OPPONENTS ARGUMENTS.1) It is nowhere in the bible. In fact, quite the contrary. Jesus heals the poor, homeless, and sick and blesses them. He says that we should live in a life of poverty.2) See 1st argument.3)What about people who are let off from jobs? What about people who quit from a tyranical boss? It is not thier choice a lot of the time, so it isn't a lifestye choice.4) The same can go for my argument of Hoboland. Less homeless people in the neighborhood.5) mentally unstable and thus they should be locked up at once.Or sent to Hoboland! The should be free to be with fellow hobos and live a crazy life. Now, ONTO MY DEFENSE.1) They don't get a vacation, but that's what they think that they have. We are keeping them out of our lives and they won't have any anger towards us.2) As I stated, and you agreed to these terms, Hoboland does indeed exist, and Hoboland is NEAR Hawaii. I never classified how near, so it could be a couple hundred miles. And, what would be the point of a Hoboland if we don't put hobos there? Seems like a rather large waste..... I don't think people want to vacation to a place called Hoboland infested with hobos....3) Who cares if they don't recover?!?!?!? My opponent doesn't, he thinks that we should all just dispatch of them. The point of Hoboland is to relocate hobo's to a place where they can do no harm to us.4) As I stated, It already exists. :)5) As I said, they think it is a vacation. They find this enjoyable. They get crackers every tuesday. They will not want to revolt. Besides, they're crazy hobos. We will have screening which makes sure that no hazardous weapons or anything that can be a weapon gets sent there. Besides, just like with Japan, if they revolt, WE NUKE 'EM. Now, for flaws in my opponent's reasoning.My opponent is saying that we should put them in jail, or kill them. This would just be seen as a way to institute fear amongst the Americans and it will make us seem like savages. Those who have the misfortune of being let off or fired from an evil boss, should die? Now I state:....................AMERICA IS BETTER THAN THAT.Doing this will make us seem evil. Plus, putting them in jail will give them a place to stay, and those that are struggling with a financial crisis to the extreme will makethemselves poor just to get free housing in jail.HOBOLAND FOR THE WIN!!!!
Being poor should be a crime

It will be imprison all the homeless vs give them an island. I will argue my points first and then argue against cheesedingo1's points Arguments for being poor being a crime 1) Being Poor is a sin I think its in the Bible somewhere 2) Being poor is immoral I also think that its in the Bible 3) Being poor is a lifestyle choice People dont just end up being poor, it is a lifestyle choice. People look at the long winding path to success and wealth and say "f*ck that" and instead choose to get high all the time by snorting cat piss. Being poor affects people's family too because it turns out that poverty can be a STD passed on to other people who are close to the person living in policy. It works like this, person has poverty, person meets other person, person makes rampant loveless sex to person, person now has poverty. 4) No more poor people in your neighborhood Its as easy as that, and with no poor people in the neighborhood home prices will start climbing even though that is based on no research or common knowledge whatsoever. 5) Poor people are crazy Prove me wrong. Poor people are some of the craziest people I have ever met in my life! They always think the government is after them for no reason, or that aliens probed them, or that government aliens probed them.... Poor people are a danger to society because they are mentally unstable and thus they should be locked up at once. ======================================================================================================================================================== Now arguments against a Hobo Island near Hawaii 1) Why do they get to go on a free vacation when I dont??? 2) Hawaii is one of the last clean and not smelly places on Earth, this Island would ruin it 3) They wont be able to recover from their poverty by sticking them on an island. In the movie Castaway Tom Hanks didnt become richer, he became tanner but not richer. 4) Are there even any extra Hawaiian Islands even available to make this place or are we going to have to make one? If we have to make a new one then I am against this because the US should be making an island to put all of our trash into a giant landfill so that I dont have to keep putting my trash into my neighbors pool. 5) They could organize and rise up to try to attack us. That IS how Japan started and why the US entered WWII, Ill be damned if the homeless do the same thing AGAIN
Being poor should be a crime

I accept this challenge, and how outgoing of you to attack the host so quickly. :)I beleive that poor people should not be sent to jail, or killed, but sent to a small island country where they can all live in harmony.I call it:HOBOLAND.In hobo land, everyone is happy, homeless, and get crackers every thursday.Btw, please help this guy out.http://www.google.com...HOBOLAND WILL BE HAPPY. FREE OF DEATH PENALTIES BECAUSE OF THEIR MONEY.My Perimiters:1) Hoboland exists near Hawaii.2) Hoboland exists.3) Alaska is a place of tortilla chips and polar bears.THAT IS ALL.Let the debate for homeless people: BEGIN!!!!!!!
Being poor should be a crime

This is a part of Cheesedingo1's troll debate tournament, this is my challenge to Cheesedingo1 Resolution: Anybody who is poor should be a crime that is punishable by prison terms, and in some cases if extreme enough, be given the death penalty Parameters 1) Poor is anyone who lives in poverty and is of working age but chooses not to work 2) Minimum term for jail time for being poor is 5 years 3) People who break the poor law 5 times will be put to death First Round is Acceptance Only
Being poor should be a crime

I start off by thanking Imabench for his arguments.1 and 2) He concedes to these points, therefore I win them.3) As I said, we don't tell them they will be nuked, and we don't even nuke them if they behave. And of course a bunch of smelly homeless people would want a free vacation to an island with fellow hobos. And, when they are in jail, as stated in Imabench's 1st argument, there was a possible death sentence. So there is death sentence or hawaii vacation...... need I say more?Not that big....... Nuke them if they become trouble......... We are talking about Hobo's not Japan!Hoboland isn't that big. It is smaller than Japan, and could easily be nuked out by several bombs. In Japan, we used 2 nukes for 2 towns. And Japan is an entirely different debate.4) My opponent also show's class warfare. Class Warfare is defined as "class struggle: conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)" (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). If you side with the PRO, you are saying that you are better than the homeless. You are saying that they don't deserve to be on the streets and should be in jail. 5)The hoboland smell could not travel that far by such a small place thousands of miles to Korea, Japan, or China. While hobo's are smelly, the scents of homelessness could not travel 1000's of miles.6) I am in fact 1/16 japanese, my great grandma was half Japanese. So I can sympathise the Japanese. Anyway, as I have said countless times, the hobo's will not get nuked unless we have a reason to. 7)Going to jail isnt free, prisoners have to pay for their incarceration you know, and in mroe ways then one. (Im talking about having things shoved up your anus, yes)Shoving things up your anus? what does this have to do with hoboland? ITS NOT MY FAULT THAT MY REDNECK NEIGHBOR LIED TO ME ALRIGHT!!!! And my definition of what is moral isnt wrong because I dont HAVE a definition for that word..... Im assuming moral is a type of elf in World of Warcraft. I win the points on the Bible and being poor, and you are wrong.....moral is a character from Yu-Gi-Oh. Come on.We can do that by putting them in Prison, THE THINGS DESIGNED TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY. Being poor should be a crime. It is a lifestyle choice, a gateway crime into making Ponzi Schemes, and we have a system in place to deal with them rather then send them all to Hawaii and nuke them.Putting them in a Hawaii environment will make them feel better and not have to dwell in thier own self-pitty when they get laid off from a job and get poor. That will not be the case if we put them in Prison.I thank Pro for this good debate and I thank the Voters for putting up with me yet again, and I thank the rest of the people in my Troll tourney. Thank you all!HOBOLAND FOR THE WIN!!!!!!
Words

Arguments:I had the longest word in the dictionary round 1. [1]Round 2 was just historical and sounded cool.Round 3 was likely a new word in your vocab that you will gain from this.So:1. Longest words2. They pronounce cool3. You probably leaned words with mine. Sources:Me. All tied but I used oxford dictionaries one round, that's the worlds most trusted dictionary. [2] Vote Con[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Words

word: Love Type of word: Noun Pronounced: (luhv) Sentence: If I were to love maybe i would be loved Definition:a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend. 3. sexual passion or desire. 4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart. 5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love? 6. a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour. 7. sexual intercourse; copulation. 8. ( initial capital letter ) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid. 9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor. 10. strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books. 11. the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love. 12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God. 13. Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing. 14. a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L. 15. to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her. 16. to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person). 17. to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music. 18. to need or require; benefit greatly from: Plants love sunlight. 19. to embrace and kiss (someone), as a lover. 20. to have sexual intercourse with. Resources: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate is a means to an end, and that end is TRUTH.

PRO's R3 arguments can be found in the comment section. Disregard the forfeit. 1) Yet another contradiction. Even if this was what PRO had intended to argue, there is still one big problem. Look back to the previous round. If the truth (non absolute truth) is what is within the constraints of our knowledge, then we MUST conclude that it was truth that the earth was flat several centuries ago given that this was within the constraints of our knowledge back then. Pro clearly deems the earth being flat as untruthful, ergo, his argument STILL violates the law of non contradiction. 2)If people are making false claims and exaggerations, they are not going to be presenting facts. If all they are debating is not the truth, there is no way the truth will be readily apparent over time. 3) See point #5. 4) By no means is it irrelevant. The point I'm getting at is that the truth is inaccessible. We may make edits to our knowledge over time, but there is no way we'll even truly know for sure based on our limitations. Thus, at best, my opponent's position can only lead to the conclusion that debate's end is "change in ideas in the universe or rather what is deemed "knowledge. Debate cannot grant us the truth, especially if the truth is only limited to indisputable definitions 5) No pigeon holing here. My problem is PRO's use of IS in the resolution, only to go about saying "might. " Both words express completely different ideas. As far as having realized many truths at the end of the debate: This has been covered. Our universal limitations make us unable to verify whether or not we know the truth. Time and time again, our minds have proven to be very powerful tools which can distort reality without us even knowing (dreams, hallucination, nervous breakdowns, etc). Not to mention the fact that what we consider "knowledge" constantly changes. Even these so-called truths which PRO speaks of having been revealed are not verifiable Thanks for the debate.
Debate is a means to an end, and that end is TRUTH.

1) Contradiction: PRO points out anything can be disputed as long as long it is not a statement which is true by definition. In other words, the only possible way PRO's logic could follow through would be if all debates resulted with one side having a claim which is true by definition (which wouldn't make sense in itself given that this would suggest that the debate didn't result in the truth given that the truth was apparent before the result). However, all debates most certainly do not result like this (which even PRO acknowledges this with his claim that only a piece of the truth is discovered at the end of each debate). What I'm getting at is the mere fact that only things true by definition are indisputable means that that the victor of a debate is always going to be disputable. 2)Interesting, so if two individuals were insulting one another and making exaggerated or false claims about the other, they "would be presenting facts to each other" and would be working towards the truth? 3) The "truth" may be revealed? Isn't your position that the truth IS revealed? By all means, this argument does not make any sense. PRO has admitted that people may lie or see what they want to, but with supporting evidence, the truth may be revealed. However, what if people don't have the supporting evidence? For that matter, what if they have misconstrued what they deem to be evidence? 4) You need not look any further than PRO confessing that knowledge can indeed be false as well as his flat earth example. If our knowledge was false back then, how do we know it isn't false know? How do we know we have all the information? For all we know, we could very well be dreaming up this experience called "existence" or that there are factors which only make the earth APPEAR spherical. 5) See above. In addition, what I mean to insist is that absolute truths are nonexistent for the most part (PRO says nearly anything is disputable and that knowledge is unreliable).
Debate is a means to an end, and that end is TRUTH.

Aside from a statement that is true by definition, any case can be disputed. To argue that you have discovered a 4 sided triangle would not be much of an argument because a triangle is by definition 3 sided. To address your second point, a dispute between two people might be seemingly futile due to the subjective nature of individual view points. However, as both parties hash their argument out they would be presenting facts to each other. Whether or not they are willing to accept each others views, they are still working towards truth through presentation of their experiences. Though this may be sidestepping your third contention a bit, let me try to explain what I mean. Even if fore-mentioned parties disputing may not see eye to eye, they would both be presenting what they know to be true. These points may not be true as sometimes people lie or see/hear what they want to, however with supporting evidence the truth may be revealed. Knowledge can indeed be false. For example, it was once common knowledge that the world was flat. However we have since learned through evidence and discussion that this is not true and that the world is spherical in shape. That is a degree of truth, but the world isn't perfectly spherical, it's surface varies in texture and while generally spherical, the absolute truth in that matter is that the world is not perfectly spherical. To address your last question, the conclusion the world is spherical is the result of many truths that must have come before. As those truths became evident, they then further opened the way to the conclusion that the world is not flat, but spherical. Ultimately, when this debate is over, people will have gained some pieces of the puzzle of what truth is. They will have gained some insights, whatever those may be, and statements made by both you and I have truth to them. And in the end, one absolute truth will be, that either you or I have won the debate, among other truths gained in the process.
Debate is a means to an end, and that end is TRUTH.

In order to conduct this debate, I need merely rely on the Socratic method in my initial round. 1) You say the following: "In the end of a debate there is a victor and that is the one who has argued their case to the point of being indisputable by their opponent. Thus resulting in a truth." Question: How do we determine whether or not a case is indisputable by one's opponent? 2) Have you ever engaged yourself in a personal dispute (or a debate rather) with a close family member over something as a trivial as "who was to do the dishes" or who is right or wrong regarding a personal incident between each other? Or have you ever witnessed your parents engage themselves is similar trivial dispute? If so, how would such situations fit into your position? 3) You said: "While not all statements made in a debate are necessarily true, through proving or disproving them truth is eventually gained in some form." Question: How so? For that matter, how do we determine whether or not someone has proved or disproved these statements? 4) You said: "In the end, through logical argument, factual statement and citation, debaters and observers will have gained knowledge, feeding to the pool of information that could be further debated and expanded upon." Question: Can "knowledge" be false? 5) You said: "One debate can be, but is not always absolute truth however. It is only one piece of the puzzle. With numerous pieces the path is laid to what is true." So are you saying that with numerous pieces the path is laid what is the absolute truth? And that's all the clarification I need. Till next round. :D