BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
this person should be tortured

there is a theoretical possiblity that Bob does nto know the future acts. but, for effective purposes, he has shown that he does know. espeically if he says he knows, also. effective reality, this is enough to justify torturing him. Bob established that he is guilty per his arrest, because he admits it all.. and he shows by his affirmations that he knows vital information and very highly knows more. why would you assume into the hypotehtical that there's other ways to find the information, if it's definied in the initial post that there are no outside sources? con is just trying to find a strawman, a way to create an argument that is defeatable, when it goes beyond the realm of the facts of the case. con cannot rest on his arguments alone. how bob was arrested. it is irrelvant as long as there's nothing that connects others or the activity to him. the facts as said do not tie to him. let's say he turned himself in as teh spokesman. it simply doesn't matter unless trying to create facts that don't exist in the case. "he general, Abrahamic definition of this is something along the lines of 'Burning in hellfire for all eternity'. Therefore, if Bob truly believes this, even several weeks of torture are preferable to giving up true information. He may, however, be weak-willed, and give up the true information under pressure." then you admit there's a possiblity that he'll be weak willed and give up the info? that's teh whole purpose of torture. the person may not tell... but then again, they might. if all else has failed, we have to take the best possiblities at our disposal. "This is one of those scenarios - I would argue it is worse for the Government's resources to be sent on a wild goose chase than for them to be spent on other methods of prevention." how is it a waste of government resources to try our ebst to get information to stop terrorism as described? the person knwos the info, very likely, and even if there's goose chases, there will very possibly eventually begood info. plus, you assert there's better use of our resources... but don't list any. what could be better than what we got? the only means we can deduce to stop the terror? and why do we care about his mental health? if he has the info, which he was showing himself to have... then we're going for that. he could be insane, or retarded... but if he has the info, that's all that matters. he's proven himself a guilty party with an atronomical certainty... which for effective purposes is all that matters.
this person should be tortured

Bob colluded with terroist groups around the country. Bob wants the US to leave Afghanistan and their terror groups won't stop until the US complies. every other day, the groups of terrorists will rape, torture, and kill a group of ten women with their children in US cities, towns, etc. Bob is in custody of the US. he knows the city and two women who will be chosen each time. He predicts that in two days the women will be chosen from X city. After the deed, he discloses the names of the women he knew who would be involved. no one is able to communicate to Bob, so Bob shows that he knows the city and names in advance, in his own mind. there are no ways to give this information to Bob, Bob is in sealed custody. Bob has the knowledge to prevent known people from getting raped tortured and killed. He likely has the information to capture the perpetrators. Bob should be tortured to acquire the information, for at the very least the names of the people he knows will be involved. there's no other way to get the info, and it's the moral thing to do, to torture bob, when there's no other ways to get the info, and all other tactics with Bob have not worked . eg, rough interrogation, roughing him up, softer torture like waterboarding etc.
George Lucas originally intended jar jar binks to be a Sith Lord

It is not unusual for trained force users to jump 20ft but the fact two Jedi saw him perform this jump and were not suprised tells me that Gungans can do this. We don't see other Gunguns doing these jumps but nor do we see Jar Jar jumping any other time, it is just when he dives into water. That scene shows he is happy to be going back to the hidden city as that is where he feels he belongs. He was bannished for being clumsy ALL OF THE TIME, which proves his clumseyness is part of who he is. Here are some clips showing what we are debating:The battle of Naboo can be found here:You will see at 2:30 on the above video that Jar Jar fails to jump and falls to the ground which proves he is not trained, throughout the film he is clumsy, at 1:30 he even knocks himself out. There is no purpose for his clumsyness otherthan to entertain the audience (and to be a bad influence and later be manipulated by Palpatine). Jar Jar defeats several droids by blind luck, he was just trying to cling onto a vehicle holding those balls, trying to catch one etc. Perhaps he was guided by the force like Anakin when he was a boy, but Anakin was not a Jedi or Sith when he was a little boy. Training is required, and Jar Jar does not appear trained for any reason involving killing other people. Once someone has a title and seen as a hero it is much easier for them to be given further responsibility.Palpatine would easily beable to manipulate Jar Jar because he lacks intelligence. Simple mind tricks don't work on the weak minded, Padme is strong minded like the two Jedi, it would be pointless for Jar Jar to use mind tricks if he could. It is crazy to think Jar Jar is Palpatines master too. If Jar Jar was a Sith he would not allow Palpatine to have an apprentice. There is always two - an apprentice and a master. Does the actor say anything specific about the hidden meaning behind the film?
George Lucas originally intended jar jar binks to be a Sith Lord

I apologize for the long read, but it should of been a fun read. When jar jar makes his 20 ft. Jump in the air and the two Jedi don't think anything of it, I don't believe this shows this is not unusual in the Star Wars universe, but it shows it is not unusual to trained force users. If it were not unusual to complete a acrobatic feat to that level, then why are the only people seen doing so are trained force users? Jar jar is the only person that is seen jumping that high in the air that isn't a Jedi/sith. I agree when you say that when Anakin wasn't just lucky when he blew up the droid space station and that he was unknowingly guided by the force. Anakin turned into one of the most powerful Jedi/sith there ever was. The force was stronger in him than others. When jar jar seems lay waste to the droid army, he seems to be doing so single handed. Of course some the other gungans may have defeated some droids, but jar jar defeated several droids(including destroyers droids), and droid tanks. He was a lot more "lucky" than any one else o. The battlefield which implies that he is stronger with the force than anyone there as well. I agree his hand gestures look natural but this could just be an extension of his drunken master, he made his gestures more natural because he wasn't trying to be obvious. Also his mind control isn't limited to hand gestures. There are multiple scenes where there is no apparent reason for jar jar to be on screen, but in those moments it looks like jar jar is putting words into people's mouths. When padme wanted to explore tatooine with Qui gon, jar jar is scene behind the group and his mouth moves to match what the dark skinned pilot said exactly. Since jar jar is a CGI character, all his movements are purposeful, even lip movements. Jar jar doesn't have a master because I believe he is palpatines master. They are from the same planet so it isn't crazy to think that they knew each other before the events of phantom menace. He also granted palpatine emergency powers to palpatine. I find it strange that there is no mention of dooku in phantom menace to introduce him for the next movie. Is it possible that George Lucas was so disappointed by the fan reaction to jar jar that he re-wrote the script? The voice actor for jar jar stated that George made big changes in the script for attack of the clones, and when this speculation surfaced in the Internet, the voice actor tweeted, "I will say this, it feels really good to see the hidden meaning behind the work comes out, no matter how long it takes. #TPM"
George Lucas originally intended jar jar binks to be a Sith Lord

There is a lot to read in my opponents source, so I will just pull out what I believe to be the main points from it, if I miss anything he may bring it up.Drunken Fist Wushi followed by a 20 foot sommersaultTwo Jedi (Obi Wan + Qui Gon) watched Jar Jar Binks perform a huge leap in the air, and didn't ask questions, this shows it is not unusual in the star wars universe. Afterall pod racers can have Jedi reflexes but that doesn't make them Jedi. They must be trained to become a Jedi or a Sith - there is always a master and apprentice.Jar Jar is too luckyJar Jar single-handedly takes down a battledroid tank by accidentally causing boombas to roll down a hill, he hits multiple droids with a blaster tangled around his ankle, becomes a bommbad general etc. You may think no-one is that lucky, Obi Won even says 'in my experience there is no such thing as luck'. He is probably right, Anakin wasn't just lucky when he destroyed the droids in the Phantom Menace, he was guided by the force though he didn't know it, and Jar Jar is also guided by the force like the creatures who pilot pod racers. Why is Jar Jar clumsy ALL of the time? My guess is it is part of his personality. It is just who he is, he's not trying to fool anybody. He lacks intelligence and is a bad influence, that doesn't make him evil. For him to be a Sith he must be evil. Instead he provides comic relief, and does not get angry, or show any fear, hate or other quality leading to the darkside. DookuSome people say Dooku seems flat, shoehorned-in character with no backstory and say he was hastily written in to cover the plot holes left when villain Jar Jar was redacted. However it actually makes sense to see Dooku because when Palpatine's apprentice Darth Maul was killed, Palpatine didn't know about Anakin, once he did, he sought a new apprentice whilst hoping to one day replace Dooku with the boy he befriended and manipulated.Sith are unlike Jedi, the Sith don't want to see their apprentice become a master like them, which is why Darth Vader desn't have an apprentice and why Palpatine wanted Luke to replace Darth Vader rather than allow both to live. If Jar Jar was planned to be a Sith who would be his master? Palpatine already had an apprentice. Mind controlJar Jar's body language seems natural to me, when Sith and Jedi use the force they make an unnatural gesture.
George Lucas originally intended jar jar binks to be a Sith Lord

Jar Jar Binks was clumsey long before he could have been taught drunken arts, and lacks intelligence/knowledge to be a Sith. Jar Jar feels he belongs to his people, and fights in a droid battle. This is not something a Sith would do. Palpatine (a Sith) fakes his cpture and despite being locked up has control of the situation. An example of mirror/ryhiming of the originals is when Jar Jar hits himself with a ball that he's trying to sling just like the Ewok (teddy bear) in the original Return of the Jedi.
George Lucas originally intended jar jar binks to be a Sith Lord

Someone who is trained in drunken master would appear clumsy on purpose. You have described the actual plot line that was followed out by jar jar. I believe the 2&3 movies would of been different if the fans didn't react so negatively towards jar jar. George Lucas would know of all people how obi wan doesn't believe in luck, so why would he put someone I. The movie that was THAT lucky just for comedic relief? George Lucas was quoted saying(you can find the source of the quotation in the above article) that the prequels were supposed to mirror/rhyme the originals. He also said that the character of yoda was based of an old myth where the hero stumbles upon a seemingly benign, small animal on the side of the road that dope ant seem to have any significance, but turns out to be the master wizard. Jar jar fits that description perfect. I agree it is crazy and hard to think about, but being from the same planet in the Star Wars universe is a pretty big coincidence. Also after thinking about the possibility of his character-like the the Jedi-are based of a certain form of martial arts, his force capabilities, and how amazing a plot twist that would of been if jar jar's character wasn't so idiotic. But I believe that was George's original intent. The voice actor didn't give details but also said that George did make big changes to the story of the second movie after the first one came out.
Tyler dishonored his promise and didn't have a justifiable reason to do so.

First of all, I don't remember there being a group ready to play last of us but I wouldn't worry about that. Tyler could only keep one promise at a time. He had several promises to fulfill due to several people helping him with the trophy which I was one of. Tyler can only fulfill one promise at a time and he chose to fulfill mine first on destiny. He later fulfilled erik's promise as Tyler said he would. Tyler also did not specify the time of when said promise would be fulfilled.
Tyler dishonored his promise and didn't have a justifiable reason to do so.

ArgumentTyler was playing Destiny with Con and I had gathered a group of people who wanted to play The Last of Us. We just needed Tyler to join us. I asked him to join which he refused to do. I reminded him of his promise, and he still refused. The excuse was that "He could only keep one promise at a time." The bystander had previously asked Tyler to play Destiny, so he used that as his reason, although the promise was that he would get off Destiny and play The Last of Us upon request immediately. Therefore, his excuse was horrible and Tyler did not keep his promise.
Tyler dishonored his promise and didn't have a justifiable reason to do so.

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Closing StatementResolution: Tyler did not keep his promise with me [awwww] and made a horrible excuse for doing so. Background Information: Tyler is not partaking in this debate. We have me, the one who *allegedly* Tyler did not keep the promise to, and also a bystander who is con in this debate. The promise was that he would play any game that either I or the bystander wanted whenever we asked, even if he was on another video game (in particular, Destiny). This was especially emphasized with Destiny, whom Tyler had stated that he would get off immediately upon request. Rules: By accepting this debate, you agree with everything stated in this post. The debate structure must be upheld. Definitions if needed will be given in your starting argument. Burden of proof is split.
This house believes that the American troops should not leave Iraq.

ï¿½ Please point your Contention 2. I just heard one of Obama's speech and he said "we will continue to SPEND ten billion dollars a month in Iraq. ." isn't that a large amount of money? The majority of Iraqis wants the American troops out. It is becoming increasingly obvious the Iraqi government feels the need to do exactly nothing as long as the AT are there to keep everything under control. Terrorism reports claim that you are increasing the danger to America with your presence there and are a magnet and recruiting poster for foreign terrorists. Also, there are AT in South Korea and they maintain the peace there because the people there are cooperating. If the Iraqi really wants to be at peace with Americans, then they should know how to cooperate. But why are there still people dying? too many people dying. . I think the AT has done their part already and it's up to the Iraqi people if they want to do what the americans had thought them. Too many lives have been sacrificed already. With this, I say that the American troops should leave Iraq.
This house believes that the American troops should not leave Iraq.

Now, before I get to my contentions, I would like to address my opponent's Speech. "the american troops should leave iraq becuase their job is done already. " What job? Right now, the American troops are maintaining peach and stability in the middle east after we so rudely invaded them. .. I know, not funny. .. In any case, I believe we're doing just fine. Our job as the leading superpower is to assure the well-being of other countries. In this case, we're cleaning up our mess. Also, to address my opponent's talk of our job being done, if you want to argue that every job we set out to do is completed, you'd have no leg to stand on. AQI (Al Queda Iraq activity) is down 75%. That is a large number, however, it's not 100%. I would now like to move on to my contentions. 1) We have enough troops. 2) The cost of war for OUR troops is not an astronomical amount. 3) Congress alone retains the right to decide when we may pull out. Contention 1 goes as follows: Do you realise that we have 600,000 troops in reserves? We don't need any more for whatever reason there may be, we have trained soldiers on call at any time should a crisis occur on home soil. We currently have around 150,000 troops in deployment, and only about 90,000 of which are in Iraq. We are known for our specialization so I do believe we'll be fine. Contention 2: We're only spending about 4 Billion dollars a year on our troops. That is not that much and is a necessary cost should we complete our task. Taking our troops home early would, therefore, prove all the money we have spent, wasteful. Contention 3: According to the War Powers Act, Congress alone has the right to decide who goes into war and for how long. Until Congress sees it fit to pull our troops, we must agree that through bipartisan legislature, we are to stay as long as Congress sees necessary. In accordance with the above reasons and refutations I hereby urge a Pro ballot. I await a rebuttal from my opponent and once again, thank you for producing this debate. ~EG
Fraud In Martial Arts

All of Pro's arguments rest on a few fundamental points 1) There is a specific and absolute way to teach people Martial Arts, 2) The Pro's way is the ONLY way to teach someone martial arts 3) There is no other way to teach martial arts to people, they MUST use the same rules that the company that the Pro works for operates 4) Any company that does not should be shut down because what they are doing is fraud and illegal First of all, there is no golden tablet that says how martial arts must be taught to people, you just want the entire world to learn it according to how the organization you work for teaches it. And why is your way the only way to learn it? Why cant I use a different system of learning Martial Arts if in the end I still become a master of martial arts? (theoretically of course) Secondly, Not everything can only be taught in one way. Here is a list of subjects/skills/arts that can be taught or learned in many different ways and with many different structures, 1) Pilots learning how to fly a plane 2) A driving instruction course teaching people how to drive 3) Teachers teaching students about history 4) Teaching someone how to paint with skill 5) Learning how to operate any one of a thousand computer games or programs 6) Learning how to play any one sport such as football 7) Learning how to play any one position in any one sport such as football 8) An astronomer learning what to look for in a telescope 9) A mechanic learning the different parts of a car 10) A Nurse conducting a number of tests on a hospital patient 11) A Comedian trying to perfect their act 12) A Coach running a standard practice for his team 13) A hunter learning how to try to find animals 14) A politician answering questions from reporters 15) A person trying to develop a response to someone else in a debate There are a great number of things that can be taught in many ways, but there is no necessarily "correct" way to any of those things mentioned above. A different alternative to learning any of those things also is not something to frown upon and call out "FRAUD!!!" Its innovation that should be respected. Martial Arts is just like any of those things listed above. It can be learned in many ways with no one way being the "correct" way and in the end if both styles teach the same skills. Just because different martial arts companies teach students how to learn the art differently than yours doesnt prove that your way is right,that their way is wrong, that their way qualifies as fraud, and that their way should be illegal while only your way is used.
Anything is a hypothetical possibility

There were a lot of premises in your argument and all of the base ones were yet to be proved. I don't see many rational people agreeing with any of your argument. Even if you're right about everything, you still haven't proven that it's not the case that, whatever you believe, you're right about everything and a maximally omnipotent god made everything true anyway, as they could do that by definition of being able to do anything. You still haven't disproved every possibility where anything is possible, so it is still possible that anything is possible. If it is possible that something is possible, that thing is a hypothetical possibility. It is possible that anything is possible, so anything is a hypothetical possibility. Therefore, the topic is true.
Anything is a hypothetical possibility

ClarificationRecall the resolution: Anything is a Hypothetical PossibilityThis is to say, any hypothetical is the case in some possible world. If I can find one proposition that is not the case in any possible world, then the resolution is negated. I have done this. Pro states this is a non-sequitur, but it follows perfectly from any reasonable reading of the resolution. This being said, let’s address some other points. RefutationsLook at the first 3 strings of his code:first = "anything is true."first1 = "anything is still true even if"second = " it is false that "As I said before, this literally accomplishes nothing. “Anything is true”Once again, no, If I can find one thing that is not true, this statement is untrue.“Anything is still true, even if it is false”Once again, definitely not, things that are true are true, and things that are not true are not true.This is true by virtue of the law of excluded middle, stating P or ~P is true, and it can’t be the case that both are true, because this is an exclusive disjunct.Pro says:” It is even possible that they don't exist and the logically impossible and being all powerful are impossible and they didn't make it that way, but still simply because they made it that way. So any hypothetical might be true because anything is true if they made it that way.”Pro seems to argue that because an omnipotent being could exist, they could make anything occur, but this is false. An all powerful being is still bound by logic. Even theist philosophers agree that God can only do what is logical. For example, X is omnipotent if X can do anything.X can either create a rock he necessarily can’t lift, or he cannot create the rock(exclusive disjunct)X cannot do bothX cannot do anythingAll powerful beings are still bound by logic, thusly somethings, if they are non-logical, are necessarily false. Lastly, pro states:”I was arguing that you cannot prove every statement that concludes anything is true to be false”I shall need pro to rephrase this statement in a more coherent manner. If you are arguing that I cannot disprove the proposition that everything is true, then this is false, because I would merely have to find one untrue thing.If you are arguing that one cannot prove things are either true or false, this is wrong. Any proposition that asserts that X and ~X are true, is necessarily false. If you are stating that I cannot disprove every proposition that is asserted to be true, then you are correct, however the case that X has not been disproved, does not in any way entail X is true nor even possible.