BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Torture

For my premise number 5 states the following; questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense. What I am trying to express through this claim is that when you are questioning someone it is not when aggression occurs but when you defend yourself it is because there is a feeling of aggression weather it is your own feeling or the other persons feeling towards you for example in a case of revenge. The premise number 8 is stating; the premise that says torture might be the best possible action in some emergency situation needs more specification because your conclusion only says some instances. This is saying that is emergency situations do that go along with the some instances and what would be an example of an emergency situation. When you say that a maximalist takes it too far by where the victim dies what is another system of torture that a maximalist may use before the victim of dying. I agree that their lives cannot go on as normal that we would need to give them a new identity and not send them back to the people that they have betrayed. My premise that says there should be requirements before resorting to torture and before resorting to torture. When it is the best case scenario but you do not have time to interrogate them does not contradict each other because I am saying if there is a possibility that there could be time then you should make sure that requirements should be met. Then if you are completely sure that there is no time to interrogate them then it"s okay to resort to torture even if it doesn't meet all of the requirements. You are contradicting yourself from your conclusion that torture is minimally morally justifiable when you say you can use minimalist torture but also keeping the requirement in mind. Therefore your premise helps my argument. This makes my conclusion that no torture is minimally morally justifiable true.
Torture

The premise that are not controversial are the definition of torture , definition of morality. In the con argument , the minimalist and the maximalist ideas are brought up. As I said in my first round argument, after a minimalist torture is performed, the tortured comes out mentally and physically unscathed, and can continue his life normally. He should also be provided with a new identity and not be sent back to those he betrayed. A maximalist takes it far by either death or when he is rendered useless to function like a normal human being like before. After that kind of a torture, continuing their lives should be nearly impossible. The con side is saying the following "If by your premise that there should be requirements before resorting to torture. Your other premise when it is the best case scenario but you do not have time to interrogate them contradicts each other." Emergency situation are totally different. Example, a terrorist has planted a bomb that is threatening thousands of lives and you don't have time. In this emergency situation, you have concrete information that the terrorist knows something, and lives are at risk. You can use a minimalist way of torture on the terrorist to get the information out of him. In this emergency situation, there are no other ways to get the information out of a person . So this cases fill the requirements. Everything depends on the kind of information you have. If you have Concrete information, than you can use Minimalist torture but also keeping the requirement in mind. With out concrete information, you do not have the evidence to prove anything and using torture would not be minimally morally justifiable. In your number eight premises, you have stated that me including emergency situation does not match with my conclusion that is stating some instances. Actually , emergency situation are included in this some instances. There is nothing in my conclusion that is stating that emergency situation are jot part of the some instances. There is more explanation needed by what your premises number eight is stating. Same thing, with your premises number 5, there is no explanation by what you mean by that.
Is it ok to debate God in from a Christian viewpoint (Christian to Christian)

I thank you for taking this argument seeing that I am a Christian and I speak to another Christian or Christ follower. I believe religion is a word used by men to classify themselves better than one another therefore I will not take pride in saying I am of the Christian religion but a Christ Follower. Now to get to it. To debate the topic of your second guess should we debate the subject God with another Christian or to a person without faith I believe we should not. The bible says that we are not to. Jesus himself showed us that we are not to debate about the father because in doing so we are trying to be right. I believe that Jesus when he walked away from a debate he didn't flee. Instead he showed that he had faith in the father and he was not willing to debate a subject he knew, instead he would show the people, or the Pharisees a group of people in the Jewish religion that thought themselves holier or better than the other, that he knew he was correct and he had utter faith in his Father. To be a so called Christian you show that you have faith and you show that you can simply explain your point without argument or debate. Instead there are alternatives to debating such as that of giving a point but when you debate you say things to prove the other wrong with in a way the goal of winning and being better than the other. I don't take a debate and think it is a debate if we are to not give point to our actions and try to come out on top. I believe it is a fight and to win is to win. There is a victor and this victor will come out. To continue something with a blind man and explain the color of the sun with the blind is hopeless but to open his eyes over time and hope he understands is what a true Christian would do. As how we are both Christ Followers, We can see ourselves as equals like Paul who wanted us to be equal on a humanistic scale,""Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality." 2 Corinthians 8:13 NIV. And yet we are not equal to God, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," Philippians 2:6 NIV I hope that we see eye to eye. I believe that the bible says we are to not fight between ourselves and overcome one another but be equal and simply explain our points and look to God. Sources- 1. The Bible (2 Corinthians 8:13 NIV, Philippians 2:6 NIV, Acts 19:9, Jeremiah 9:23 ) 2. Pastor and Jim Bennett 3. Dr. an Pastor David Lr. Bergen 4. http://docmartin1.wordpress.com... 5. http://www.campuschristians.info...
Is it ok to debate God in from a Christian viewpoint (Christian to Christian)

For round one I accept, but given such a strangely worded resolution and your total lack of providing any definitions for the terms in the resolution I’m going to have to establish a few things. You made the resolution “Is it ok to debate God in from a Christian viewpoint (Christian to Christian)” Obviously to be pro means defending answering this question YES, and to be CON means answering this question NO. The phrase “from a Christian viewpoint (Christian to Christian)” is fairly straightforward, but for the sake of clarity as a Christian I’m going to give a definition for “Christian viewpoint” and that’s the paradigm where one believes in the bible, that its true, and of course that God exist. As a Christian who has the Christian viewpoint I am completely authorized to give the definition of what that viewpoint is. The part of the resolution that is confusing is “to debate God”. I interpret this to mean “try and argue with God himself (example ‘god I don’t think you should have made Hell’) or a second possible interpretation of it meaning to argue about God (example ‘I argue that God is all-powerful first, all-loving second’) Given you said “from Christian to Christian” it makes sense to rule out the first one (arguing with God himself) and that you more likely meant the second one (arguing with another Christian about God). Personally I think I have the right to set the terms and definitions since you did not yourself do so in your opening round. But because I have no problem arguing Pro for either interpretation and am interested in making a case for either one I’m going to let you pick Con at the beginning of your next round. Should you try to define the resolution differently than one of the two ways I have done so in my opening round, I will not accept your definition and will argue to death to the very last round that the resolution can be interpreted no other way? I will also make my case for why doing any such thing should lose you the conduct point, trying to set terms of the debate AFTER your opponent accepted the challenge without seeing them One such definition I will not accept is by ‘debate god’ you mean ‘debate that god exist’ do to the fact that that is contradictory to the Christian viewpoint itself spoken of in the resolution. Not that I couldn’t make a case for that interpretation as well, but I’m not interested in bothering to and the definition is simply not implied by your resolution anyway. I await Con’s opening round.
Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualism or collectivism, which philosophy is superior?I will defend collectivism, thus the opponent will be a proponent of individualism. There are 3 Rounds, voting period is 1 Month, time to argue 72 hours, 8,000 characters allowed. Note: If the opponent wishes to make any changes to any of these regulations please leave a comment on the debate or send me a private message.Individualism: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.Collectivism: Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social group. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation/country. Note: The opponent should leave a message on the debate or send me a private message, if they desire to make any change to the definitions provided. There are no regulations, I simply ask for the opponent to be respectful of my opinions as I will be respect toward your opinions.
Prove that the god of the bible exists

You know what I love about people like you. You think that you know everything. You think that your the psychological master, Calling out my "lies", Don't you. Since you have declared this debate over, I will not waste my precious time responding to your shenanigans. I have moved on to more productive debates, And thus am not going to continue with this one. The fact that you think I care about your insults is very funny. I just getting into my primetime, While you are dying out of yours. I have my talents, And you have yours. One of us is going to become very accomplished in less than ten years, And the other is an atheist. God Bless you and your friends on your future endeavors.
Prove that the god of the bible exists

Prove that the god of the bible exists. A little bit about this debate. . . It is always up to theists to prove that their god of the bible exists, No exceptions, None. After all, Nobody in the entire history of the human race has ever been able to prove that this immoral atrocity god does exist. It is never up to atheists to prove that this god exists because the positioning of atheists is that the god of the bible does not exist. So why should atheists take the counterpoint and or one sextillionth of their time out of their precious lives to prove that this superior egotistical god complex in which the bible is entirely about and nothing else does exist? Rules of this debate. . . 1. If you are going to accept this debate use only chapters and verses from your bible using either the KJV, NIV, NLT translations to prove the so-called christian god exists. Be prepared to state why the god on the bible would use text. 2. Nothing else to prove the so-called christian god will be satisfactory or accepted because that is all so-called christians have to go on to prove that their god exists unless you wish to prove faith. This includes all scientific methodology since the bible did not present any scientific evidence to prove its god's existence. * Also prove that there is only one creator/ god as so-called christians believe. * For obvious reasons test, Demonstrate and assert this god of the bible's existence. In further RD's be prepared to watch some videos based on the subject matter being presented as it is evidence for this debate. If you are not willing to watch them and or invent invalid excuses such as "I don't have the time to watch them", Then DO NOT accept this debate. Rules other than proving the god of the bible exists: dsjpk5 and timmyjames are disqualified from voting in the voting process.
All morality is practical

In 4th round of Pro`s arguments, they are divided into four parts. I try to rebutt and show my opinion for them. 1. Good laws are a result of morality. : In highly industrial society many people are living with different social values, way of thinking. Some people have moral restraint but others do not. Therefore, good laws are required to regulate their behaviour. On the other hand, in some Islamic countries Isram plays an important role in society and people`s lives. In those countries morality and religion are closely linked. Viewing from a different angle, they are regarded as laws to manage and controll their life and economic activities. I believe some people lack in morality and take irrational, unreasonable behaviour. Therefore, good laws must be established. I think laws are social instruments to keep morality not a result of morality. They aim for dealing with bad, unsocial and unethical human behaviour in most of the highly democratic countries. It is important for us to distinguish between law and morality. Souraw Mandel argues about this problem. `` The great jurist asserts that force is necessary to controll human behaviour because humanity as a whole is not governed by reason. If every one thinks reasonably and acts rationally there is no need of binding one`s behaviour. But the experiences in history do not provide clear evidence of such rational behaviour and so the idea of law has developed on the assumption that it is necessary to compel the behaviour of individuals in a particular direction to achieve certain specific ends. Justice and conscience seem to be personal and individualistic. ``( Law and Morality, www. legalserviceindia. com) 2. Morality and the individual : In this section Pro said: ``Our instinct to behave morally even when unobserved is irrational. God and our pride in our moral selves is rationalizing it. `` I believe that if he or she is a devout believer in a religion, he or she behaves morally and rationally according to the idea of religion. In my opinion this does not apply for all people. 3. Morality is universal: I agree with Pro`s arguments in this section. The important thing is that in a small society or community morality is functioning well among close friends or family members. 4. Morality is practical: Pro said: ``Even though the type of societies we live in nowadays are very different from societies of the past, our moral instinct is still strong. `` It is true that our moral instinct is still strong in the relationship between friends or among family members. However, unfortunately, we must recognize that the rich people do not care of the poor or the unemployed. The important thing is that some people have moral instinct but others do not. Therfore, I believe whether moral instinct is practical or not depends on a situation which a person faces and a place or a country where he or she lives. From my arguments and rebuttals, I think that all morality is not practical.
All morality is practical

In this round I try to rebutt the arguments made by Pro in Round 3. 1. Pro said: ``Not only are the moral instincts of empathy, reciprocity and fairness ubiquitous in the human species, they have also been shown over and over throught the primate order.`` And ``morality is an in-group mechanism, which means that it works for groups to protect themselves in preference to outsiders.`` I believe that these arguments are partly true. In particular, ``morality is an in-group mechanism.`` For example, people in many African countries pay respect for traditional way of life, religion and community rules. They place higher value on their own morality. These indigenous people are less addicted to modern civilized life. They lead a life according to the morality of their own in the age of globalization. Therefore, we can say that their morality is practical. However, as I said in Round 2, the developed countries like the U.S. and Europe have different moral standards and values. Morality shoud be practical to make a society safety, pleasant and peaceful place to live in. However, unfortunately, these days the importance and value of the morality in those countries are being lost. So the situation which morality is not practical is emerging. People do not pay much attention to the importance and significance of moral values in schools, offices, public places and their communities. This triggers cruel crimes, bullying and violence not only among younger genaration but among older counterparts. Therfore, a law is necessary to deal with illegal actions taken by them and to cope with social disorder that we encounter. 2. The role of law in society. We must recognize that morality can not make a sound, fair and safer society. Therefore, we must establish a law. In this case we must keep in mind the relationship between morality and law. The important thing is that ``morality is absolutely determined by the rules and laws established by authority. Maintaining law and order is more important than selfish desires.``(Society of Morality, http://www.mit.edu...) It is said that capital exploits workers in a capitalist society. However, in Germany equality of capital and workers is well maintained. This contributes to the stability of economy and society. The reason is that managers in the country manages and administers their employees not by the morality but by the co-determination law. The law plays an important role as a moral restraint or a social tool to maintain moral practicality among German managers. ``Co-determination `` is a ``concept for employee consultation and participation in company decisions at both establishment and company/group level within private sector companies.``(Co-determination in Germany-A Beginners`Guide, http://www.boeckler.de...) We must try to build a civilized society based on the morality and law.
All morality is practical

Let me present my arguments. I imagine that Pro`s summary of 2nd round is the essence of Pro`s arguments. 1. I believe morality of human beings depends on a society where he or she lives and is determined by circumstances which he or she faces. Therefore, I do not support Pro`s main argument that moral instinct has evolved in humans. If we can recognize the evolution of moral instinct in human history, I believe income disparity between the rich and the poor, mass unempolymen, serious crimes and bullying among children would not take place. 2. We must recognize that some people have moral restraint but others do not. In other words, there are at least two types of human beings in modern society. One type is that he or she behaves for the benefit of a society or a community. They can distinguish that what ia right and what is wrong of their action. The other type is that he or she always seek for his or her own interests and social status without paying much respect for the welfare of the general public in a society. They do not think seriously their action affect on individuals and a society. I think all human beings take these behaviour according to the situation facing them. 3. Let me show one example. In particular, many U.S. managers are only interested in seeking for the short-term profit making. Their behaviour is self-interest oriented. They have scant symphasy for the workers. They receive a large amount of income by cutting the wages of their employees or laying them off to survive global competition. On the other hand, ``Europe places more restraints on executive compensation, so its corporate leaders don`t receive the outsized packages than their American counterparts do.``( Global income inequality : Where the U.S. rank, by Tami Luhby, http://money.cnn.com....) This case shows that American managers have less morality for the welfare of workers compared with European counterparts. In other words, morality of U.S. managers is not practical and their behaviour is not ethically acceptable. However, behaviour of European managers are practical from the viewpoint of morality and ethics. The important thing is that different countries and societies have different moral standards and values. 4. Morality is required to controll our actions and our thoughts to create a sound and fair society. (Society of morality, http://www.mit.edu...) However, in reality this is difficult to accomplish. The reason is that we are social animals and we have different values and way of thinking. From above arguments, I believe all morality is not practical.
All morality is practical

Before begining my arguments let me define the term,``practical`` as follows. It is concerned with voluntary action and ethical decisions. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). And ``ethical`` is defined as follows. Pertaining to or dealing with morals or principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. (. http://dictionary.reference.com....) Pro says in the comment that ``morality exists for practical reasons. `` I believe this is an important point. If all the people in society recognize the importance of morality in every day life and if they behave according to morality, social cohesion, social efficiency, social equality and safety can be maintained. However, unfortunately in reality they are difficult to accomplish in many societies. Therefore, I don`t agree with Pro`s idea that ``all morality is practical. `` I look forward to an enlightening debate.
All morality is practical

Morality is a system that works within a society to enhance mate selection, childbirth and childrearing, collection and preservation of resources, general social efficiency, cohesion and safety. When morality works, societies survive. Therefore, the morality we see in action today has been successful.This is so obviously true, it's possible that nobody wants to debate this, but I thought I'd try anyway and see.morality (noun): principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour; a system of values and principles of conduct (1). This debate is only concerned with systems of morality that currently exist or have existed.practical (adjective): of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas (2)(1) http://oxforddictionaries.com...(2) http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Gym class should be cut

Physical education every day may be pleasure for some kids, but will be an agony for many other children. Children who aren't good at sports at all. For those children daily physical education will decrease well-being, because they have to meet standards they are never going to meet. Offer daily sports to children who like sports, don't make it obligatory to all kids. One time a week was more than enough for me. (Note: I am not obese at all) What point would there have been in making me sport on a daily basis? Making me underweight? Fail in sports on a daily basis? I know my stamina isnt that good, you don't need to tell me every day.