BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Waterboarding be used in interrogation

To address your first point, I do not see how it has been "clearly demonstrated throughout the centuries that torture of any kind is not only completely ineffective but actually hampers the pursuit of truth." Not to long ago 911 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded several times for extensive periods of time and he revealed information that saved hundreds of lives and also the information was credited with saving Library Tower. There is an obvious difference in physical v. mental torture. Physical torture, one comes out with scars, burns, missing limbs, but mental/emotional torture only leaves memories and fear. Waterboarding now has an aspect of fear that comes along with it; some people will even confess at the mention of possible waterboarding. Water boarding is effective also because it handles fear over physical pain, fear is powerful. Also, I noticed that in your argument you referred to water boarding as "torture", Here is the definition straight from Merriam Webster dictionary, "the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something." Notice it mentions nothing about mental pain. Take a look at http://content.time.com... I think we can both agree that Time magazine is a pretty credible source. It says that the lasting effects of waterboarding are psychological. This infuses fear into the victim and they will refer to waterboarding with fear, others will see the effects and their interrogation will hopefully be finished before waterboarding is used. When you say "psychopathic tendency in the mind" do you mean that trying to reveal information that can prevent thousands of deaths and family splits is "psychopathic"? Also if the suspect would cooperate, then it would not even get to the stage of waterboarding, by not cooperating they are submitting themselves to another level of pain. They know its coming, so they can easily avoid it by cooperating. Also, they must have done something to get the attention of the CIA or another government investigation team in the first place, so it was their choice to commit their crime.
Should Waterboarding be used in interrogation

It is counter productive to torture people as a means of interrogation. It has been clearly demonstrated throughout the centuries that torture of any kind is not only completely ineffective but actually hampers the pursuit of truth by interjecting the bias of the torturer into the body of information. I.E. If you torture me, I will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to make the torture stop, regardless of veracity. There is no perceivable difference in physically harmful torture versus mental torture. Both elicit the same human responses, emotions, and outcomes. Torture has been shown to be effective in the exact opposite of interrogation, mind control. Interrogation is the extraction of unbiased information from a subject. Mind control is pure injection of bias into a subject. I doubt that there is any credible research into the physiological effects of waterboarding upon humans. Such an experiment would require extensive human testing that would be considered illegal because of the mere potential for harmful effects or lasting emotional trauma. Engaging in torture of any kind is quite simply the reflection of a psychopathic tendency in the mind of the torturer, and any justification of its deployment should be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate said tendency from the world of normal, empathetic, humans.
Football should be banned as an organized sport for high school students

Thank you for taking up my challenge Flipz. I believe this is going to be a good debate. You have some good points and I'd like to go down and try to make some clarifications and defenses. I would first like to address the issue of danger. You are right that certain activities aren't banned even though they're dangerous. Actually interestingly enough fast food is starting to get hit especially in California, where toys in happy meals are banned taking the happy out of the meal. I would concede that certain activities however like driving are dangerous, although I would also say that it's somewhat necessary the way infrastructure in cities works. To expand on my point I also believe the degree of damage is significant. Teenagers don't have fully developed brains and their brains bounce around more when their head takes a hit. This actually causes more damage than in adults who participate in the NFL. Even things aside from head trauma, such as shoulder or knee injuries, from which the students may never recover. The bodies of people in high school are still developing, and constantly stunting such growth or damaging the body in day-to-day collisions in blistering heat can be detrimental. Occassionally heat stroke will happen, and schools without nice facilities where a student can be immediately helped have had students die. I would also like to refute your point concerning the benefits of football. While you're right concerning the values learned in it, I would disagree with your discounting other sports as being beneficial in those areas. For example, soccer has a web of players that will function most effectively if all are used. In a sport like baseball or basketball quick thinking and selflessness are developed in order to work as a team as effectively as possible. All sports include a grounding in a hard work ethic. What these sports don't include is the bodily damage. While there is phsysicality in them, it's not part of the focus of the game. Concerning your point on demand, it should be noted that demand of an object doesn't necessarily justify an object's promotion. Admittedly this is an extreme example, buts even if there was a higher demand for human sacrifices, it still wouldn't be legal. It is a good analogy however, seeing as these students are sacrificing their bodies and their minds to a good degree. Even though their participation is out of free will, although a lot of parents force their children to participate in football or make the student feel as if they should, it is still a high danger sport. I will now address the relevancy of other activities. Cutting a football program saves schools up to millions of dollars. Now, while the topic is football, we have to examine the effects as well. The effects naturally is saving money that can either lower taxes or repurpose the money to the schools on a more beneficial way concerning education (as that should be a primary concern of the schools). I won't spend any more time on the issue since I've made my claim and warrant with it. I just wanted to clarify why I believe it's relevant.
Football should be banned as an organized sport for high school students

Football causes serious head damage in high school students and even in NFL players. The hits they take during practice and during the game damage their brain throughout the season and leads to a decrease in mental capacity down the road. Deaths have also been caused by this sport in high a school students. According to American Journal of Sports Medicine, deaths can be caused by cardiac failure, brain injury, and heat illness, and there is an average of 12 deaths per year in high school and college football. I am aware that statistic includes college football, however, the fact that deaths occur is significant. Seeing as football is not something necessary for educational purposes, the fact that it causes deaths and is causes head injuries in the rest of the players is enough for cancelation. However, with this in mind, we can look at some benefits of canceling football programs in high school. The average salary of a football coach is $73,000, and school districts have spent up to $20 million per stadium for high school football. With that kind if money, a significant amount of educational clubs or extracurricular activities could be implemented in schools, which will increase learning abilities. For example, not all schools have a debate team even if they have a football team. If you switch the two, there's a higher standard if education in the schools. Debate teaches you to think critically and analyze quickly. While football may increase a mentality like strategy, they're specific to the area of football. Other areas like music are also important to education. According to Laura Lewis Brown of PBS, "Making music involves more than the voice or fingers playing an instrument; a child learning about music has to tap into multiple skill sets, often simultaneously. For instance, people use their ears and eyes, as well as large and small muscles, says Kenneth Guilmartin, cofounder of Music Together, an early childhood music development program for infants through kindergarteners that involves parents or caregivers in the classes." Taking away money spent on football programs and giving it to other more educational areas may be part of what's needed to increase the educational standard in America. At any rate, the children that die in football and the positive alternatives to football is enough reason for banning football as an organized sort for high school students.
Football should be banned as an organized sport for high school students

Thank you for providing this debate, Storm. If you still want to keep the debate to just four rounds after you read my post, I am okay with this, as I feel we have both had sufficient space to present and defend our points. It"s up to you. To clarify my earlier position, I am not arguing that a high school football ban would result in a slippery slope, but rather I am just trying to place a premium on the players" right to choose. In a society that values choice, we should not deny a player the personal rewards and benefits of a game, especially when the risk of permanent injury is nearly negligible. My analogies of high school football to other dangerous activities have served to show that the motivation behind a ban is wrong. It"s wrong because there are many other sports more dangerous or almost as dangerous as football. It"s wrong because it contravenes an ethos that says we shouldn"t have to sacrifice personal choice and responsibility for safety in context of voluntary activity. Also, I think I"ve made the point about how the demand of high school football could lead to a number of unofficial games or leagues, where players might be less equipped to deal with injury. There might also be an economic loss concerning the NCAAF or NFL. The voters can decide to weigh this how they like, but I think these are particularly important points. As for our competing sources, I want to give a little more analysis. The study I originally published was from a story found in Business Insider, which was published in 2010. You can find the link at http://www.businessinsider.com.... Business Insider received their information from the National Center for Catastrophic Injury Research. You can find that link on the BI page. Second, to clarify my statistics from earlier, my information referred to the relative danger of sports and casualties per million players. This means that they did not count absolute injuries. I don"t know of any source that does. That being said, your source, Dr. Korey, could be right about how the majority of injuries in high school sports come from football. Nevertheless, I don"t know enough about the source to critique the context, but it certainly seems to me that his statement sounds like a guess and shouldn"t be considered as any kind of scientific evidence. As for Malcolm Gladwell"s article, I did think it brought up any points that have not already been addressed, and besides, it was really only about a self-imposed ban on college football, which you do not advocate. If you need any clarifications, please see my arguments from Round 3. I yield back to Pro.
Football should be banned as an organized sport for high school students

Thank you for that post, you're making very strong point against my case to which I, as a firm believer in sticking to ones position to the end of a debate, must now come up with refutations. Now, I would like to address something in your last post concerning the ethos value of sports. I feel you have a very adequate understanding of the values you speak of, however, I also feel it's a fallacy to put too much emphasis on football itself when concerning these values. It is true that the ability to choose is important, and you imply a slippery slope, which without a precedent, is a logical fallacy. If you can bring up a precedent in either of your next to posts, the argument may stand again for further analysis. However, concerning the inherent right to choose, something like football isn't necessary for this. We can look to precedents in the past such as ancient Athens, which is not famous for sports, but for the thinkers produced from a more educational and very free society. They were able to choose, but they didn't need events like football to exercise their freedoms. I would also like to bring up some professional and medical agreement on the issue. I would like to know what year the study you cited was done in, because I get a feeling it could be somewhat old. I say this because of a quote from Douglas Casa Ph.D., Korey Stringer Institute: "Probably at least two thirds to three quarters of the deaths in sport at high schools in America are related to football. The seriousness and intensity of high school football in America has just grown by leaps and bounds in the last five, ten years." I will also cite a Forbes article that summarizes Malcolm Gladwell's study and advocation. He specifically advocates against college football (something I do not agree with), but the nature of the game extends to high school. http://www.forbes.com... If I respond to your point considering unofficial games I'll simply repeat myself. I feel it should be left up to the voters at this point whose argument they agree with. I will yield back to com now, although ow that I'm in the debate I feel like anything more than four rounds is unnecessary. Honestly if you feel the same way we don't have to do five rounds.
nuclear deals will not make india rapid progress

I am the PRO of this topic. As such my advocacy is quite clear. Nuclear deals will not make india rapid progress. The con advocacy is thus the opposite Nuclear deals will make india rapid progress. My opponent has seemed to have conceded to my stance and provided me with evidence. I contend that "how can we say only because of nuclear deals India will be a rapid progress when there are still thousands on the roads striving for food" A PRO vote is clear.
Competitive Team Fortress 2 is Dying.

My apologizes, when I said that "It is not only dying, but thriving", I accidentally put only. Read the sentence like this instead, "So we can assume that competitive Team Fortress 2 is not dying, but THRIVING." This sound much better, and is what I initially meant to type.Now, I did not say that ESEA wasn't getting enough revenue. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I said that if ESEA felt that it wasn't, that ESEA would shut down it's TF2 league. I believe you just misunderstood what I said.Again, I'm not the one trying to prove that TF2 is dying. That's up to you to prove. YOU are supposed to show the judges that Team Fortress 2 is dying as a competitive sport. Therefore, I cannot post proof saying ESEA is not getting donations, because...well... they are, for one. And for two, it would hurt my arguments.Since you only have one round left, I'm going to not add any new arguments, so you can try and argue the one's I've currently made. Good luck.
Competitive Team Fortress 2 is Dying.

First off, as I read your post, I noticed this. "So we can assume that competitive Team Fortress 2 is not only dying, but THRIVING." Doesn't this kind of contradict itself? Also, "Now, I mention this because of the fact that competitive TF2 is streamed online for people to see. I bring both of these points up because, if ESEA felt that it was not getting enough money or views from Team Fortress 2, it would shut down it's Team Fortress 2 league" Do you have any proof that they have been failing to do so? If not, this statement is null. "we see that ESEA has had 13 LANS, this is significant to my arguments because of the fact that ESEA is a business, and like any business, it seeks to make a profit. It does this from donations, viewer ship, player payments, and so on. Now, I mention this because of the fact that competitive TF2 is streamed online for people to see." Yes, but yet again there's no way to know if the entire competitive TF2 community is dieing just by this point. Also, reference to my above post. Unless I was completely blind to your post, you didn't provide any proof showing they haven't been getting donations. Offtopic, I should join up in one of these competitive rounds. They sound pretty cool.
Competitive Team Fortress 2 is Dying.

I'm not exactly sure how to reply to that, although now I understand the basic concepts of UGC, ESEA, etc. I still hold firm to my view on this; competitive E-Sports games like these tend to fizzle and come back again and again; although I will agree with you that it's small. I'm not exactly sure why, though. Also, apologies for doing everything wrong so far.
Competitive Team Fortress 2 is Dying.

Hi. My name is Rocket Propelled Gordon, and I will be debating this topic with you today. I'm kind of new to this thing, so if I get anything mixed up, apologies. I have spent 1885 hours on Team Fortress 2. Although I have never played in any competitive matches, I feel that I can still offer a reasonable debate. Anyway, is competitive TF2 dieing? No. However, given that as you say that it's small, it's bound to fizzle a little over the course of 5-6 years of running. TF2 is just one of those things that you have to trust won't die. If it does, it's no -one- person's fault, but rather it's a case of a in/out sort of thing, where trends give birth to more trends and die. It's just as well that tf2 has no trending offspring; anyway, good day.
Do You Get More Exercise Doing Basketball or Soccer

Soccer is more demanding physically. You play for 90 minutes, with a fifteen minute break in between, and substitutes are rare given that each team is only allowed three. This means that you are less likely to get subbed out and therefore keep playing. While there are positions that are less demanding in terms of running (Keeper), you are jogging the entire time if you are a good player. Furthermore, not only will you have to sprint in Soccer, but at least 3 times the distance than in basketball. Not only this, but in basketball, as most players are very tall it doesn't take much time to reach the other end of the court. The field dimensions in soccer are 110–120 yards(100–110 m) long by 70–80 yards (64–73 m) wide and basketball courts are roughly 94 by 50 feet (29 by 15 m). This is a significant difference. All players in soccer will make a trip across the half of the field during the game, multiple times. Mid field players will continuously go back and forth. On that aspect, it depends on what position you play. While free kicks are granted there is no stoppage time during the game. Not only are you having to run continuously , but you have to use those same feet to perform tasks such as crossing a ball 30-40 yards accurately, or moving in ways to avoid your opponents attempts to steal the ball. In basketball you can run around and shoot the ball with your hands, however, you have to do both with your feet in soccer, which is harder. Both sports are difficult in their own right and require different training. While basketball requires more upper strength, soccer requires more lower strength, and more endurance in terms of running. For exercise, since endurance within Cardio is key to exercise, Soccer would be better. According to the latest Compendium of Physical Activity by Ainsworth and Haskell, soccer is by far the more demanding sport requiring approximately 25% more energy expended and for far longer than basketball. In Soccer there are also various leagues, which have different levels of difficultly. Basketball, however, does require a more specific build, which could be a factor in whether or not Basketball is "harder", however the question being raised is whether or not basketball gives you more exercise. In the end, soccer would win that particular category. -S.C.
Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

Yes, it is in a persons instinct to protect themselves. It does not however justify using deadly force or torture that does not even sound correct. Self-defense is extreme and or intentional harm inflicted on another person when you feel as though you are in harms way. You said "in order for that individual to survive, some form of torture is necessary and that act is justifiable" an act of torture is never justified. Each individual's moral concerns only how he or she act but does not affect the definition of what it is. Since we agree that one"s definition of morality does not concern the rest of the world and does not justify torture I suppose we should move on from that. If someone murders another individual they will be on trial for murder not just let off because they claim self-defense. Self-defense is not minimally morally justifiable. Torturing someone causes the moral standards of the torturer to be compromised and fro what reasons we ask. Because it could possibly save someone"s life is the reason to water board, burn, starve or beat someone? What you are saying is incorrect; people are interrogated simply due to suspicion. Only thing one must do to be interrogated is to be under suspicion of have done something, attempted, or been involved in a crime, or something morally unjustifiable. How can you say interrogation is a torture and in the last round say it is not a form of torture. Interrogation is an unjustifiable form of torture that can be used on innocent unknowing people. Causing fear and forcing an individual to say what you want to hear is torture if we go with the definitions you set in the first round. If it is clear who the terrorists are why is the public so misinformed? Everyone in their minds has a stereotype of who and what people are. Just because I look sane does not mean anything I could be a psychopath killing by day and sleeping by night. Do you believe someone else"s life is of lesser value than your life? If you did not then torture would not be morally justifiable in your eyes.